Skip to main content

Full text of "Final report : comprehensive inventory of natural ecological communities in Alachua County"

See other formats


'y. 



.♦ \-x 






( , 1 






^<i\ 

M 



) i . 



m 



um 



.}> rti 



'v;.' t 



;<* f 



f(^ 



in!',;..- ;■= 



^i'« 



un: 



I": J 



i 






' ' * • 



lii 



:<iliitttii!i 



iiUBMil]/!' 



'»;•' 



' iHl 13 J MlU 



iliiiljl! 




FINAL REPORT 
COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF 
NATURAL ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 
IN ALACHUA COUNTY 



Prepared by: 

Linda C. Duever ^ 

Robert W. Simons 
Reed F. Noss 
James R. Newman 

KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences 
P.O. Box 14288 
Gainesville, Florida 32604 

November 30, 1987 

87031 

Prepared for: A}^^^ 

Alachua County Department of ^ 

Planning and Development Q- 7. 



^ 



s 



Preparation of this document was aided through financial assistance 
received from the State of Florida under the Local Government 
Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program authorized by Chapter 85- 
167, Laws of Florida and administered by Florida Department of 
Community Affairs. 



-ft 3 

inn 

PlAti Oocj 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION . 1-1 

1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1 

1.2 RATIONALES 1-3 

1.3 METHODS 1-4 
l.A ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1-7 

2.0 NATURAL COMMUNITIES 2-1 

2.1 CLASSIFICATION 2-1 

2 . 2 FLORA 2 - 1 

Introduction 2-1 

Scrub 2-2 

* Sandhill 2-4 

Xeric Hammock 2-6 

Upland Pine Forest 2-8 

Mesic Hammock' 2-10 

Slope Forest 2-14 

Mesic Flatwoods 2-16 

Scrubby Flatwoods 2-17 

Floodplain Forest 2-18 

Baygall 2-20 

Wet Flatwoods 2-23 

Hydric Hammock 2-26 

2.3 FAUNA 2-29 

2.4 ALACHUA COUNTY DISTRIBUTION 2-30 

2.4.1 Scrub 2-30 

* l.k.l Sandhill 2-30 

2.4.3 Xeric Hammock 2-31 

2.4.4 Upland Pine Forest 2-31 

2.4.5 Mesic Hammock 2-32 

2.4.6 Slope Forest 2-32 

2.4.7 Mesic Flatwoods 2-33 

2.4.8 Scrubby Flatwoods 2-33 

2.4.9 Floodplain Forest 2-34 

2.4.10 Baveall 2-34 

2.4.11 Wet Flatwoods 2-35 

2.4.12 Hvdric Hammock 2-35 

*2.5 HABITAT- SPECIFIC CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS 2-36 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED 

Section "^ Page 

3.0 SIGNIFICANT UPLAND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 3-1 

Prairie Creek 3-4 

Santa Fe River 3-7 

* Lochloosa Forest 3-9 

Barr Hammock 3-12 

V Watermelon Pond 3-15 

Hickory Sink 3-18 

Sugarfoot Hammock 3-21 

Chacala Pond 3-24 

Mill Creek 3-26 

Hatchet Creek 3-30 

Parchman Pond Scrub 3-32 

Hornsby Springs 3-34 

y Kanapaha Prairie 3-37 

Gum Root Swamp 3-39 

Millhopper Flatwoods 3-41 

South LaCrosse Forest 3-42 

Palm Point Hill 3-43 

Fred Bear Hammock 3-45 

Rocky Creek 3-47 

Buzzard's Roost 3-49 

Santa Fe Creek , 3-51 

North San Felasco Hammock 3-53 

Shenks Flatwoods 3-55 

Serenola Forest 3-56 

Domino Hammock ' 3-58 

"Moss Lee Lake Sandhill 3-60 

Beech Valley 3-62 

Northeast Lake Altho Flatwoods 3-64 

South Melrose Flatwoods 3-66 



4.0 OTHER IMPORTANT UPLAND HABITATS 4-1 

4.1 SPECIAL HABITATS 4-1 

(A) GRASSY LAKE WOODS 4-1 

(B) MILLHOPPER SANDHILLS /ROCK CREEK 4-2 

(C) CROSS CREEK HAMMOCK 4-2 

4.2 BUFFERS 4-3 

4.3 LINKAGES 4-3 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED 

Section Page 

5.0 WETLANDS AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS 5-1 

5.1 WETLANDS 5-1 

5.2 AQUATIC SYSTEMS 5-2 

5.3 GEOLOGIC FEATURES 5-2 

5.4 PUBLIC LANDS AND PRESERVES 5-3 

5.5 SMALL SITES 5-4 

6.0 PRIORITY RANKING OF SIGNIFICANT UPLAND NATURAL COMMUNITIES 6-1 

6.1 CRITERIA ■ 6-1 

6.2 SCORING 6-1 

6.3 ANALYSIS 6-8 

7.0 RESOURCE PROTECTION EVALUATION 7-1 

8.0 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING NEEDS 8-1 

9.0 APPENDICES 

9.1 LETTERS AND FORMS USED TO SOLICIT AND RECORD INFORMATION 

9.2 SITES OF RELATIVELY MINOR IMPORTANCE AS UPLAND HABITATS 

9.3 SMALLER SITES THAT APPEAR TO HAVE QUALITY UPLAND ECOLOGICAL 
COMMUNITIES AND MERIT INVESTIGATION 

9.4 QUAD SHEETS WITH PRELIMINARY BOUNDARY MAPS 



LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

6.1 Site Ranking Criteria - Alachua County Uplands 6-2 
Inventory 

6.2 Scoring System for Site Priority Ranking - Alachua 6-3 
County Uplands Inventory 

6.3.1 Recommended priority Ranking for Alachua County 6-9 
Upland Ecosystems 

6.3.2 Priority Ranking for Alachua County Upland Ecosystems 6-10 
Based on Site Quality Considerations Alone 

6.3.3 Priority Ranking for Alachua County Upland Ecosystems 6-11 
Based on Strictly Ecological Criteria 

6.3.4 Priority Ranking for Alachua County Upland Ecosystems 6-13 
Based on Prospects for Long-Terra Maintenance of 
Ecological Integrity 

6.3.5 Priority Ranking for Alachua County Upland Ecosystems 6-14 
Based on Typical Greenbelt Considerations 

6.3.6 Priority Ranking for Alachua County Upland Ecosystems 6-15 
Based on a Traditional Conservation Approach Similar 

that of the Nature Conservancy 

6.3.7 Priority Ranking for Alachua County Upland Ecosystems 6-16 
Based on "Simberloff Scenario" Disregarding Corridors 

and Linkages 



Alac.Rank.1-1 
11/30/87 



1.0 TNTRODUCTION 

1 . 1 BACKGROUND 

Though the beauty and diversity of Alachua County's native landscapes have 
been praised for centuries, there has never been a systematic inventory of 
the county's valuable natural areas. The Florida Natural Inventory (FNAI) 
maintains a data base on the best sites for the rarest species and 
communities statewide, but their information on natural areas of local 
importance is spotty. General land use maps show the distribution of the 
major ecosystems and detailed habitat maps have been prepared for Paynes 
Prairie, San Felasco Hammock, Oleno State Park, and other existing 
preserves. Wetlands have been mapped and given variable and debatable 
eunounts of legal protection. But upland communities like sandhills, 
hammocks, and flatwoods have been heretofore documented only in a piecemeal 
fashion. 

The study reported here was undertaken to provide information on important 
upland sites as a background for county comprehensive planning. The Alachua 
County Department of Planning and Development needed information on 
ecological communities to complete the Conservation Element of the county's 
Comprehensive Plan and to assist the Alachua County Conservation and 
Recreation Areas Task Force (ACCARATF) in greenbelt planning. County 
officials felt more or less satisfied with their knowledge of wetlands and 
the regulatory means for protecting them, but were disturbed by lack of an 
information base on upland ecosystems. The county therefore applied for and 
received a small grant from the Florida Department of Community Affairs 
(DCA) and contracted KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. to conduct a 
"Comprehensive Inventory of Ecological Communities" for Alachua County" 
concentrating on upland ecosystems in need of protection. 

The tasks required in the Scope of Services for this contract have been 
addressed as follows: 



1-1 



~"^ Alac.Rank.1-2 

11/30/87 

I. A. We reviewed the FNAI classification. Its applicability to Alachua 
County is discussed in Section 2.1. 

I.B. The classification system presented in Table 2.1. was developed as 
the framework for this inventory. 

II. A. We evaluated the goal, objectives, policies, standards, and ranking 
criteria identified in the fourth draft of the updated Conservation 
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 7.0 relates our 
recommendations to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 
Two of our study team members were former FNAI personnel and they made 
every effort to see that our work would mesh well with FNAI ' s 
procedures. FNAI will receive a copy of the final report with 
annotated updates to the Element Occurence Records . 

III. A. Section 1.3 describes the methods we used for identifying and 
reviewing existing data sources. 

III.B. We reviewed 1:24,000 color infrared aerial photography as discussed 
in Section 1.3. 

III.C. We conducted an aerial overflight as mentioned in Section 1.3. 

III.D. We conducted on- the-ground field surveys of all areas that appeared 

on the infrared aerials as natural uplands greater than approximately 
100 acres in size. This is discussed in Section 1.3. 

IV. We mapped all Significant Upland Ecological Communities on USGS 7.5 

minute topographic maps. We decided that the maps would be easier to 
use if the natural community names were written directly on the map, 
rather than coded and keyed. The names used are consistent with the 
classification. 



1-2 



Mac. Rank. 1-3 
11/30/87 



1.2 RATIONALES 

A clear understanding of the working definitions used for several basic 

concepts is essential to proper interpretation of this study: 

1) "Upland" - The layman typically thinks of uplands as high, dry 
ground. The ecologist often equates the terms "upland" and 
"terrestrial", loosely regarding a terrestrial community as one that 
is not water- logged or flood-prone. For this study, we have 
stretched the definition a bit further, incorporating any community 
that does not consistently meet legal criteria for protection as a 
wetland. Hence we include Floodplain Forest, Baygall, Seepage 
Slope, Wet Flatwoods, and Hydric Hammock, which are all systems 
which would be classified as wetlands from a purely ecological 
viewpoint. They arp all frequently flooded or saturated and support 
plant species which would not grow on dry sites. 

2) "Ecological Community" - An ecological community is an integrated 
association of plants and animals adapted to and dependent upon a 
particular environment. "Natural community" means the same thing. 
"Habitat" is sometimes used interchangeably, but more precisely 
refers to the environment required by a particular species. 

3) "Natural" - In the purest sense, a natural area is one that has 
maintained native species and unaltered ecological processes without 
being affected by man. In reality, there is no longer any such 
thing. Practically every place in Florida has experienced some 
logging, grazing, hunting, burning, or fire suppression. Expanses 
of wilderness are now fragmented by roads and fields. Important 
species have become rare or extinct. Foreign plants and animals 
have invaded. 

The Florida Division of Recreation and Parks evaluates naturalness 
in terms of how closely a habitat resembles how it was when Ponce 



1-3 



Alac .Rank. 1-4 
11/30/87 



deLeon arrived. For purposes of this study, we have judged it in 
relation to the potential for restoration to and long-term 
maintenance in a condition akin to that of Ponce deLeon' s time. 

4) "Protection" - We have operated under the premise that protection 
means very different things in different situations. We have been 
cautious to recommend measures sufficient to maintain the resource 
without advocating unnecessary acquisitions or restrictions. Some 
of the tracts we have evaluated are so pristine and sensitive that 
they should be used only as carefully monitored nature preserves. 
Others could incorporate active recreation complexes or cluster 
developments. We have also included neighborhoods that are largely 
developed or committed to development and need only provisions for 
long-term maintenance of wildlife habitat. The Resource Protection 
Evaluation in Chapter 7 examines various alternatives for protecting 
different types of sites and relates these strategies to the 
provisions of the Conservation Element of the county's Comprehensive 
Plan. 

It is important to remember that the purpose of this study was to provide 
expert ecological input for the planning process. This report is not a 
plan! It supplies information on the biological resources which must be 
taken into account in planning. Considerations regarding financial 
resources, recreational needs, landowner rights, development patterns, and a 
myriad of other related topics must be analyzed in order to formulate an 
actual plan for the protection of Alachua County's ecological communities. 

1 . 3 KETHODS 

Our first assignment was to develop an ecological community classification 
system compatible with FNAI ' s to serve as a framework for our inventory 
efforts. We were able to accomplish this by simply adapting the natural 
community classification FNAI uses, deleting communities that do not occur 
in Alachua County, combining those that are not distinctly different in this 



1-4 



-^ Mac. Rank. 1-5 

11/30/87 

region, and removing species that are not common here from the lists of 
characteristic species used to define the communities. 

We prepared lists of plant species expected to occur in each upland 
community in Alachua County from the draft lists compiled for KBN's ECOFILE 
software. Linda Duever developed these lists from species lists for Element 
Abstracts prepared for The Nature Conservancy, articles written for the 
Palmetto , and materials assembled for her forthcoming book, 
Natural Florida: A Guide to Ecosystem?; , supplemented with information from 
hundreds of additional references and field surveys. 

Faced with the task of finding the best natural uplands within a 
570,880-acre landscape, we initially screened out areas on the assumption 
that bigger is better, knowing that larger tracts generally have better 
prospects for longterm viability. 2ob Simons went over 1986 1:24,000 
infrared aerial photographs of the entire county with John Hendrix of the 
Alachua County Department of Envircrjuental Services. Drawing on their 
familiarity with the county, they i-ientified sites greater than 50 acres 
that appeared to be natural uplands and marked them on a set of 1:24,000 
uses topographic quadrangle maps, lob then field surveyed these sites and 
prepared site record forms (Appendic 9.1) and through telephone . contact and 
preliminary species lists describirg each of the upland communities on each 
site. 

Meanwhile, we solicited input from local conservationists and biologists by 
mailing out and posting letters (Apjendix 9.1) making telephone calls 
explaining the purposes of our stud; and inviting suggestions as to sites 
that should be considered. 

We searched the FNAI files and tramferred data on the locations of rare 
species and communities onto a seccnd set of quad sheets, overlaying this 
information with the boundaries of ^-^e field surveyed sites. We then 
requested printouts of FNAI's Elemeic Occurrence Records, field surveys, and 

1-5 



Alac .Rank. 1-6 
11/30/87 



other relevant information for all areas in the vicinity of our field survey 
sites. 

We looked up pertinent- sounding references mentioned in the FNAI files and 
asked several experts to recommend relevant literature, but we did not find 
literature search to be a worthwhile data- gathering technique for site 
specific information. The reports and publications we found typically gave 
greater detail than we needed on specific aspects of individual sites, most 
of which were already developed, severely fragmented, or difficult to locate 
from the information supplied. 

The most promising reports we encountered were the "Green Plan Inventory" 
and "Open Space and Recreation Plan" prepared in 1973 by the North Central 
Florida Regional Planning Council. We went to the NCFRPC offices and 
reviewed the unpublished descriptions of the sites listed in the Green Plan, 
but even these did not tell us much that we did not already know. 

As field survey forms, species data, reports, site recommendations, etc., 
came into the office, a file was begun on each site. Information on places 
that did not appear to have natural upland ecosystems was set aside 
(Appendix 9.3). The remaining sites were screened at a meeting of the 
entire project staff. Those deemed to be unimportant were pulled out and 
those too fragmented to be considered as potential preserves but still 
valuable as habitat were placed into a special group. The remainder went 
through the full priority ranking process. 

Additional research was done to flesh out information on the sites that came 
out in the top dozen after preliminary ranking. Additional field trips were 
made so that all project team members had the opportunity to see each of 
these places first hand. An overflight was made to look at them from the 
air and examine their landscape relationships. 



1-6 



Mac. Rank. 1-7 
11/30/87 



Site record reports were prepared to describe each site (Section 3.0). 
Ownership data for these reports was taken from the 1986 county plat map. 
The boundaries were drawn on quad sheets with solid lines indicating 
approximate ecological boundaries or property lines that closely parallel 
them. Areas preliminary where boundary definition will require more detailed 
study and/or decisions based on non-ecological criteria were marked with 
dashed lines. The maps were annotated with other relevant locational 
information. 

Final ranking procedures are described in Chapter 6.0. 

1 . 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Dozens of individuals and organizations contributed to this project. Those 

named below were particularly helpful. 

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory was invaluable in supplying data on 
rare species and communities, 

John Hendrix and Mike Campell of the Alachua County Department of 
Environmental Services were extremely helpful, providing aerial photos, 
files, advice, field access assistance, and an airplane for the aerial 
survey. 

Karla Brandt of Florida Defenders of the Environment prepared mailing 
labels so that we could send data solicitation letters to FDE's entire list 
of local environmental experts. 

Kristin Brugger gave us leads on sources of data from previous inventory 
attempts. 

Florida State Museum staff members, including Steve Humphrey, Fred 
Thompson, David Hall, and Dick Franz, answered numerous questions. 



1-7 



Mac. Rank. 1-8 
11/30/87 



Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Coirimission personnel suggested sites and 
helped us with field survey access. Bill Frankenberger , Steve Nesbitt, and 
Paul Moler were especially helpful. Bill Kinser and Latane Donelin of the 
Alachua County Department of Planning and Development facilitated the 
project in many ways, promptly supplying maps and information as we needed 
them. 

Scott McCann of KBN adapted a Lotus 1-2-3 application for the computerized 
ranking procedures. KBN staff members Herb Piatt and Robin Hart provided 
additional information and assistance. Lisa Spinella, DeRonda Tuck, and 
Mary Buff produced the final report. Curt Pollman rescued us when the 
computer threatened to swallow the report. 



1-8 



Alac.Rank.2-1 
11/30/87 



2.0 NATURAL COMMUNITIES 

2 . 1 CL\GSIFICATION 

Table 2.1 outlines the natural conununity classification we used as the 
framework for this study. It is essentially the same as the natural 
community classification used by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory with a 
few minor changes to enhance applicability to Alachua County. 
Specifically, we lumped Upland Mixed Forest, Prairie Hammock, and Rockland 
Hammock into Mesic Hammock and incorporated Bottomland Hardwood Forest into 
Hydric Hammock. We deleted Dry Prairie, ("Grassy Scrub" in the 
Comprehensive Plan,) because we could find no such sites genuinely 
intermediate between flatwoods and wet prairie that were not strongly 
influenced by human use. 

2.2 FLORA 

The lists (Table 2.2) that follow give plant species expected to occur in 
the Alachua County natural communities we inventoried. These should be 
regarded as preliminary checklists. Since data on the habitat requirements 
of many native plants' is incomplete and our budget permitted only brief 
field surveys, compilation of comprehensive species lists was impossible. 
And, natural variability is such that even the best sites should not be 
expected to have every plant on the habitat list. 



2-1 



Alac.Rank.2-2 
11/30/87 



SCRUB 



Shrubs : 



sand live oak Quercus geminata 

Chapman's oak Quercus chapmanii 

myrtle oak Quercus myrtifolia 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

rosemary Ceratiola ericoides 

fetterbush Lyonia ferruginea 

shiny blueberry Vaccinium myrsinites 

sandhill prickly pear Opuntia humifusa 

wild olive Osmanthus americanus 

garberia Garberia heterophylla 

tough bumelia Bumelia tenax 

flag pawpaw Asimina obovata 

staggerbush Lyonia fruticosa 

huxklwvweey Fyluaaxi app . 

shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

Vines : 

scrub briar Smilax auriculata 
muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 



Herbs 



gopher apple Licania michauxii 

Chapman's goldenrod Solidago chapmanii 

palafoxia Palafoxia feayi 

silkleaf goldenaster Pityopsis graminifolia 

scrub dayflower Commelina erecta 

dog tongue Eriogonum tomentosum 

rose rush Lygodesmia aphylla 

summer farewell Dalea pinnata 

queen's delight Stillingia sylvatica 

lady lupine Lupinus villosus 

honeycomb head Baldvinia angustifolia 

sandhill blazing star Liatria tenuifolia 

sunbonnets Chaptalia tomentosa 

lavender paintbrush Carphephorus corymbosus 

cottonweed Froelichia floridana 

scrub rockrose Helianthemum nashii 

dog fennel Eupatoriura capillifolium 



2-2 



Mac. Rank. 2-3 
11/30/87 



SCRUB . Continued 

Grasses and Grasslikes : 

wiregrass Ariscida striata 
scrub rush Rhynchospora megalocarpa 
Florida bluestem Andropogon floridanus 
soft-stem panicum Dicanthelium sabulorum 

Mosses and Lichens : 

reinder moss Cladonia spp. 



2-3 



Alac .Rank. 2-4 
11/30/87 



SANDHILL 
Trees : 

longleaf pine ?inus palustris 
turkey oak Quercus laevis 
bluejack oak Quercus incana 
sand post oak Quercus margaretta 
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 
slash pine Pinus elliottii 
sand live oak Quercus geminata 

Shrubs : 

sparkleberry Vaccineum arboreum 
shining sumac Rhus copallina 
runner oak Quercus pumila 
creeping live oak Quercus minima 
saw palmetto Serenoa repens 
dwarf blueberry Vaccinium myrsinites 
sandhill prickly pear Opuntia humifusa 
polecat busch Asimina incarna 
deerberry Vaccinium stamineum 
longleaf pawpaw Asimina longifolia 
beauty berry Callicarpa americana 
rosemary Ceratiola ericoides 
garberia Garberia heterophylla 

Vines : 

scrub briar Smilax auriculata 

muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

butterfly pea Centrosema virginianum 

milk pea Galactia elliottii 

sawbriar 

Smilax glauca 

coral greenbriar Smilax walteri 

Herbs : 

partridge pea Cassia fasciculata 

dog tongue Eriogonum tomentosuin 

queen's delight Stillingia sylvatica sylvatica 

gopher apple Licania michauxii 

sandhill croton Croton argyranthemus 

bracken Pteridium aquilinum 

tread-softly Cnidoscolus stimulosus 



2-4 



Mac. Rank. 2-5 
11/30/87 



r.'^VDHILL . Continued 

blackrooC Pterocaulon pychnostachyum 

greeneyes Berlandiera subacaulis 

sandhill blazing star Liatris tenuifolia 

dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium 

sticky dog fennel Eupatorium compositifoliuni 

daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus 

sand blackberry Rubus cuneifolius 

poison oak Rhus toxicodendron 

silkleaf goldenaster Pityopsis graminifolia 

camphorweed Heterotheca subaxillaris 

blue pea Clitoria mariana 

Kdam's needle Yucca filamentosa 

lavender paintbrush Carphephorus corymbosus 

honeycomb head Balduina angustifolia 

sensitive briar Schrankia microphylla 

sandhill milkweed Asclepias humistrata 

butterf lyweed Asclepias tuberosa 

dotted horsemint Monarda punctata 

white- topped aster Aster tortifolius 

roserush Lygodesraia aphylla 

rayless sunflower Helianthus radula 

indigo Indigofera caroliniana 

sandhill Indian plantain Arnoglossura floridanum 

white beard tongue Penstemon multiflorus 

elephant's foot Elephantopus spp . 

showy crotalaria Crotalaria spectabilis 

sandhill hoary pea Tephrosia chrysophylla 

wild petunia Ruellia caroliniana 

sandhill beggar-tick Desmodiura strictum 

goat's rue Tephrosia virginiana 

summer farewell Dalea pinnata 

lady lupine Lupinus villosus 

alicia Chapmannia floridana 

puckroot Psoralea canescens 

coontie Zamia spp. 

Grasses and Grasslikes: 

wiregrass Aristida stricta 
splitbeard bluestem Andropogon tenarius 
hair sedge Bulbostylis cilatifolia 
lopsided Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans 
beaked panicum Panicum anceps 

Mosses and Lichens: 

reindeer moss Cladonia spp. 



2-5 



Alac.Rank.2-6 
11/30/87 



XERIC HAMMOCK 



Trees: 



sand live oak Quercus geminata 

turkey oak Quercus laevis 

live oak Quercus virginiana 

pignut hickory Carya glabra 

sand post oak Quercus margaretta 

southern red oak Quercus falcata 

laurel oak Quercus hemisphaerica 

magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 

redbay Persea borbonia 

American holly Ilex opaca 

wild olive Osmanthus americanus 

black cherry Prunus serotina 

myrtle oak Quercus myrtifolia 

Chapman's oak Quercus chapnlanii 

mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa 

bluff oak Quercus austrina 

flowering dogwood Cornus florida 

sourgum Nyssa sylvatica 

persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

longleaf pine Pinus palustris 

loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

laurel cherry Prunus caroliniana 

water oak Quercus nigra 

southern red cedar Juniperus silicicola 

witch hazel Hamaraelis virginiana 

sweetleaf Symplocos tinctoria 

devil's walkings tick Aralia spinosa 

Shrubs : 

fetterbush Lyonia ferruginea 
saw palmetto Serenoa repens 
sparkleberry Vaccineum arboreum 
gum bumelia Bumelia lanuginosa 
deerberry Vaccinium stamineum 
shining sumac Rhus copallina 
beautyberry Callicarpa americana 
small-flowered pawpaw Asimina parviflora 
indigo bush Araorpha fruticosa 
Carolina holly Ilex ambigua 
highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 
dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa 
coral bean Erythrina herbacea . 
hogplura Ximenia americana 



2-6 



Alac.Rank.2-7 
11/30/87 



XERIC HAMMOCK . Continued 



yaupon Ilex voraitoria 
rusty blackhaw Viburnum rufidulura 
Sebastian bush Sebastiana ligustrina 
sandhill prickly pear Opuntia huinifusa 



Vines : 

muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens 

scrub briar Srailax auriculata 

cross vine Bignonia capreolata 

milk pea Galactia elliottii 

sawbriar Srailax glauca 

catbriar Smilax bona-nox 

sarsaparilla vine Smilax pumila 

coral honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens 

Herbs : 

bracken Pteridium aquilinum 
partidgeberry Mitchella repens 
coontie Zamia pumila 
squawroot Conopholis americana 
Indian pipes Monotropa uniflora 

Grasses and Grasslikes : 

scrub rush Rhynchospora megalocarpa 
tall nutgrass Scleria triglomerata 

Epiphytes : 

resurrection fern Polypodium polypodiodes 



2-7 



Mac. Rank. 2 -8 
11/30/87 



UPLAND PINE FOREST 
Trees : 

longleaf pine Pinus palustris 
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 
red. oak Quercus falcata 
mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa 
bluejack oak Quercus incana 
blackjack oak Quercus marilandica 
post oak Quercus stellata 
black cherry Prunus serotina 
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 
flowering dogwood Cornus florida 
sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 
sourgum Nyssa sylvatica 
sand post oak Quercus margaretta 
turkey oak Quercus laevis 
water oak Quercus nigra 
live oak Quercus virginiana 
laurel oak Quercus hemisphaerica 

Shrubs : 

chinquapin Castanea pumila 

gallberry Ilex glabra/ 

runner oak Quercus pumila 

summer hawthorn Crataegus flava 

dwarf huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa 

dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa 

shining sumac Rhus copallina 

deerberry Vacciniura staraineum 

beautyberry Callicarpa americana 

northern buckthorn Rhamnus caroliniana 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

coral bean Erythrina herbacca 

hercules club Zanthoxyllum clava-herculis 

wax Imyrtle Myrica cerifera 



Vines : 

Carolina jessamine Gelseraium sempervirens 
sawbriar Smilax glauca 
muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 
summer grape Vitis aestivalis 



2-8 



Alac. Rank. 2-9 
11/30/87 



UPLAND PINE FOREST. Continued 
Herbs : 

sweet goldenrod Solidago odora 

sensitive plant Cassia nictitans 

goat's rue Tephrosia virginiana 

queen's delight Stillingia sylvatica 

butterf lyweed Asclepias tuberosa 

dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium 

elephant's foot Elephantopus spp . 

blazing star Liatris spp. 

sandhill croton Croton arqyrantheraus 

pineland foxglove Aureolata pectinata 

pinewoods aster Aster adnatus 

white-topped aster Aster tortifolius 

shining aster Aster walteri 

pencil flower Stylosanthes biflora 

bracken Pteridiuin aquilinum 

peppy mallow Callirhoe papaver 

dog tongue Eriogonum tomentosum 

sandhill Indian plantain Arnoglossum floridanura 

blackroot Pterocaulon pychnostachyum 

poison oak Rhus toxicodendron 

summerfarewell Dalea pinnata 

blue pea Clitoria mariana 

gopher apple Licania michauxii 

sandblackberry Rubus cueifolius 

coontie Zamia spp. . 

lavender paintbrush Carphephorus coryrabosus 

rayless sunflower Heliathus radula 

Grasses and Grasslikes : 

wiregrass Aristida stricta 
broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 



2-9 



Mac. Rank. 2-10 
11/30/87 



MESIC HAMMOCK 



Trees: 



laurel oak Quercus hemisphaerica 

pignut hickory Carya glabra 

magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 

hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana 

sweetgum Liquidambar stryaciflua 

sugar maple Acer saccharura 

devil's walkings tick Aralia spinosa 

ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 

sugarberry Celtis laevigata 

redbud Cercis canadensis 

flowering dogwood Cornus florida 

persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

American holly Ilex opaca 

red cedar Juniperus virginiana 

red mulberry Morus rubra 

wild olive Osmanthus americanus 

redbay Persea borbonia 

spruce pine Pinus glabra 

loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

laurel cherry Prunus caroliniana 

black cherry Prunus serotina 

bluff oak Quercus austrina swamp 

chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 

water oak Quercus nigra 

live oak Quercus virginiana 

cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 

boxelder Acer negundo 

white ash Fraxinus americana 

sweetleaf Symplocos tinctoria 

basswood Tilia americana 

winged elm Ulmus alata 

Florida elm Ulmus floridana 

sourgum Nyssa sylvatica 

Hercules' club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

red mulberry Morus rubra 

soapberry sapindus marginatus 

Shrubs : 

beautyberry Callicarpa americana 
gum bumelia Bumelia lanuginosa 
Carolina holly Ilex ambigua 



2-10 



Alac.Rank.2-11 
11/30/87 



MESIC HAMMOCK . Continued 

sparkleberry Vacciniuin arboreum 

wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

small -flowered pawpaw Asimina parviflora 

stiff-cornel dogwood Cornus foeraina 

coral bean Erythrina herbacea 

strawberry bush Euonymus americanus 

yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

needle palm Rhapidophyllum hystrix 

Walter viburnum Viburnum obovatum 

wild plum Prunus americana 

flatwoods plum Prunus umbellata 

buckthorn Sageretia rainutifloria 

hogplum Ximenia americana 

blue palmetto Sabal minor 

highbush blueberry Vacciniura corymbosura 

laurel cherry Prunus caroliniana 

fringetree Chionanthus virginicus 

redbuckeye Aesculus pavia 

deerberry Vaccinium stamineum 

southern arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 

possum haw Ilex decidua 

Godfrey's privet Forestiera godgreyi 

Vines : 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens 

poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

catbriar Smilax bona-nox 

sarsaparilla vine Smilax pumila 

scrub briar Smilax auriculata 

laurelleaf greenbriar Smilax laurifolia 

trumpet creeper Campsis radicans 

cross vine Bignonia capreolata 

creeping cucumber Melothria pendula 

climbing hydrangea Decumaria barbara 

coral honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens 

supplejack Berchemia scandens 

yellow passionflower Passiflora lutea 

southern dewberry Rubus trivialis 

virgin's bower clematis virginiana 



2-11 



Alac. Rank. 2-12 
11/30/87 



MESIC HAMMOCK . Continued 
Herbs : 

partridgeberry Mitchella repens 

purple elephant's foot Elephantopus nudatus 

netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 

bracken Pteridium aquilinum 

wild petunia Ruellia caroliniana 

dichondra Dichondra carolinensis 

green dragon Arisaema dracontium 

jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum 

giant ironweed Veronia gigantea 

bedstraw Galium beriaudense 

small-flowered Spanish needles Bidens bipinnata 

longspike musky mint Hyptis mutabilis 

iresine Iresine diffusa 

bearfoot sunflower Polymnia uvedalia 

widespread maiden fern Thelypteris normalis 

valerian Valeriana scandens 

southern lady fern Athyrium felix-femina 

little ebony spleenwort Aspleniuin resilens 

dayf lower Commelina spp . 

Florida violet Viola affinis 

Walter's violet Viola walteri 

dropseed Tovara virgihiana 

rouge plant Rivina humilis 

hammock ground- cherry Physalis carpenteri 

grape fern Botrychium spp. 

Canadian snakeroot Sanicula canadensis 

Indian pipes Monotropa uniflora 

guinea hen weed Petiveria alliacea 

white ageratum Ageratina jucunda 

ebony spleenwort Aspleniura platyneuron 

Grasses and Grasslikes : 

woodsgrass Oplismenus setarius 
tall nutgrass Scleria triglomerata 
shiny chasmanthium Chasmanthium nitidum 
wet woods panicum Dichanthelium commutatum 
furry hammock sedge Carex dasycarpa 
blackseed needlegrass Stipa avenacea 
blackedge sedge Carex nigromarginata 
nimbleweed Muhlenbergia schreberi 



2-12 



Mac. Rank. 2 -13 
11/30/87 



MESTC HAMMOCX . Continued 

Epiphytes : 

Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides 

resurrection fern Polypodium polpodiodes 

ball moss Tillandsia recurvata 

red needleleaf airplant Tillandsia setacea 

greenfly orchid Epidendrum conopseura 

serpent fern Phlebodium aureura 

grey needleleaf airplant Tillandsia bartramll 



2-13 



Alac. Rank. 2-14 
11/30/87 



SLOPE FOREST 

Trees: 

magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 
spruce pine Pinus glabra 
beech Fagus grandiflora 
laurel oak Quercus hemisphaerica 
pignut hickory Carya glabra 
sugar maple Acer barbatum 
basswood Tilia americana 
American holly Ilex opaca 
red cedar Juniperus silicicola 
sweetgum Liquidambar stryaciflua 
hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana 
white ash Fraxinus americana 
swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 
live oak Quercus virginiana 
flowering dogwood Cornus florida 
sweetleaf Symplocos tinctoria 
sourgum Nyssa sylvatica 
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 
American elm Ulmus american 
ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 
sugarberry Celtis laevigata 
red mulberry Morus rubra 
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 
redbud Cercis canadensis 
water oak Quercus nigra 
red maple Acer rubrum 
sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 
boxelder Acer negundo 

Shrubs : 



strawberry bush Euonymus americanus 

stiff-cornel dogwood Cornus foemina 

wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

southern arrowwood Viburnum scabrellura 

Walter viburnum Viburnum obovatum 

pink azalea Rhododendron serrulatura 

witch hazel Hamaraelis virginiana 

laurel cherry Prunus caroliniana 

red buckeye Aesculus pavia 

blue palmetto Sabal minor 

needle palm Rhaphidophyllum hystrix 



2-14 



Mac. Rank. 2-15 
11/30/87 



SLOPE FOREST. Continued 

coral bean Erythrina herbacea 
beautyberry Callicarpa americana 
Sebastian bush Sebastiana fruticosa 
fringetree Chionanthus virginicus 
flatwoods plum Prunus umbellata 
dwarf thorn Crataegus uniflora 

Vines : 

catbriar Smilax bona-nox 

sarsaparilla vine Smilax pumila 

poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

trumpet creeper Carapsis radicans 

summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemiura serapervirens 

climbing hydrangea Decumaria barbara 



Herbs 



partridgeberry Mitchella repens 
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides 
Walter's violet Viola walteri 
green dragon Arisaema dracontium 
j ack- in- the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllura 
elephant's foot Elephantopus spp. 
Canadian snakeroot Sanicula canadensis 
netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 
bearfoot sunflower Polymnia uvedalia 
lopseed Phryma leptostachya 

Grasses and Grasslikes: 

river cane Arundinaria tecta 
woodsgrass Oplismenus setarius 
spikegrass Chasmanthium spp. 



2-15 



Alac.Rank.2-16 
11/30/87 



MESIC FIATWOODS 
Trees: 

longleaf pine Pinus palustris 
slash pine Pinus elliottii 
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

Shrubs : 



saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

fetterbush Lyonia ferruginea 

live oak Quercus virginiana 

laurel oak Quercus virginiana 

staggerbush Lyonia fruticosa 

gallberry Ilex glabra 

wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

wicky Kalmia hirsuta 

huckleberry Gaylussacia spp . 

scrub blueberry Vaccinium myrsinites 

shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 

tarflower Befaria racemosa 

flatwoods pawpaw Asimina reticulata 

Vines : ^ 



muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens 

Herbs : 



grassleaf goldenaster Heterotheca graminifolia 

vanilla leaf Carphephorus odoratissimus 

meadow beauty Rhexia spp. 

trilisa Carphephorus paniculata 

wild bachelor's button Polygala nana 

candyveed Polygala lutea 

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginiana 

Grasses and Grasslikes: 

wiregrass Aristida stricta 

scrub rush Rhynchospora megalocarpa 

maidencane Panicum hemitoraon 



2-16 



Mac. Rank. 2-17 
11/30/87 



SCRUBBY FLATWOODS 



Trees 



longleaf pine Pinus palustris 
slash pine Pinus elliottii 
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

Shrubs: 

sand live oak Quercus geminata 

Chapman's oak Quercus chapmanii 

myrtle oak Quercus myrtifolia 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

fetterbush Lyonia ferruginea 

garberia Garberia fruticosa 

staggerbush Lyonia fruticosa 

shining sumac Rhus copallina 

gallberry Ilex glabra 

wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

wicky Kalmia hirsuta 

huckleberry Gaylussacia spp. 

scrub blueberry Vacciniura myrsinites 

shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

Vines : -' 



scrub briar Smilax auriculata 
sawbriar Smilax glauca 
muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Herbs : 



grassleaf goldenaster Heterotheca grarainifolia 
Chapman's goldenrod Solidago chapmanii 
vanilla leaf Carphephorus odoratissimus 

Grasses and Grasslikes: 

wiregrass Aristida stricta 

scrub rush Rhynchospora megalocarpa 

lopsided Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans 



2-17 



Alac.Rank.2-18 
11/30/87 



FLOODPLAIN FORF.ST 



cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 

sugarberry Celtis laevigata 

red maple Acer rubrxun 

water oak Quercus nigra 

ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 

sweet gum Liquidambar stryaciflua 

coastal plain willow Salix caroliniar.a 

overcup oak Quercus lyrata 

water hickory Carya aqxiatica 

diamondleaf oak Quercus laurifolia 

swamp chestnut oak Quercus prinus 

green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

American elm Ulmus americana 

sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 

black willow Salix nigra 

river birch Betula nigra 

box elder Acer negundo 

winged elm Ulmus alata 

spruce pine Pinus glabra 

beech Fagus grandiflora 

dahoon holly Ilex cassir.e 

live oak Quercus virginiana 

loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

American holly Ilex opaca 

magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 

southern red cedar Juniperus silicicola 

cedar elm Ulmus crassifolia 

Shrubs : 

highbush blackberry Rubus argutus 

elderberry Sanbucus canadensis 

blue palmetto Sabal minor 

possum haw Ilex decidua 

needle palm Rhapidophyllum hystrix 

indigo bush Amorpha fruticosa 

yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

groundsel tree Baccharis glomeruliflora 

Sebastian bush Sebastiana ligustrina 

swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosuia 

beautyberry Callicarpa americana 

stiff-cornel dogwood Comus foemina 



2-18 



Mac. Rank. 2-19 
11/30/87 



FLOODPIATN FOREST . Continued 

southern arrowwood Viburnum dentatuin 

Walter viburnum Viburnum obovatum 

parsley haw Crataegus marshalli 

green haw Crataegus viridis 

highbush blueberry Vacciniura corymbosum 

wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

red buckeye Aesculus pavia 

Vines : 

poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

trumpet creeper Campsis radicans 

cross vine Bignonia capreolata 

peppervine Ampelopsis arborea 

supplejack Berchemia scandens 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

catbriar Smilax bona-nox 

coral greenbriar Smilax walteri 

laurelleaf greenbriar Smilax laurifolia 

hogbriar Smilax tamnoides 

American wisteria Wisteria frutescens 

common hemp vine Mikari'ia scandens 

climbing hydrangea Decumaria barbara 

virgin's bower Clematis virginiana 

Herbs : 

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica 

netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 

cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea 

marsh fern Thelypteris palustris 

false nettle Boehmeria cylindrica 

water willow Justicia ovata 

mistflower Conoclinium coelestinium 

butterweed Senecio glabellus 

giant ironweed Veronia gigantea 

spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis 

Carolina elephant's foot Elephantopus caroliniana 

coinwort Centella asiatica 

whorled pennywort Hydrocotyle verticillata 

partridgeberry Michella repens 

Florida violet Viola affinis 



2-19 



Mac. Rank. 2-20 
11/30/87 



BAYGALL 



Trees 



sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 

swamp bay Persea palustris 

loblolly bay Gordonia lasianthus 

dahoon Ilex cassine 

white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides or C. henryi 

sweetgum Liquidambar stryaciflua 

blackgum Nyssa biflora 

red maple Acer rubrum 

cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 

ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 

spruce pine Pinus glabra 

diamondleaf oak Quercus laurifolia 

water oak Quercus nigra 

American elm Ulmus americana 

live oak Quercus virginiana 

slash pine Pinus eilliottii 

pond pine Pinus serotina 

Shrubs : 

Virginia willow Itea virginica 

wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

swamp haw Viburnum nudum 

gallberry Ilex glabra 

swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum 

highbush blackberry Rubus argutus 

winterberry Ilex verticillata 

maleberry Lyonia ligustrina 

myrtle-leaved holly Ilex myrtifolia 

large gallberry Ilex coriacea 

bog myrtle Myrica heterophylla 

odorless myrtle Myrica inodora 

highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 

titi Cyrilla racemiflora 

buckwheat tree Cliftonia monophylla 

leucothoe Leucothoe racemosa 

dog hobble Leucothoe axillaris 

latherbush Clethra alnifolia 

elderberry Sambucus canadensis 

needle palm Rhapidophyllum hystrix 

Florida anise Illiciura floridanura 

poison sumac Rhus toxicodendron 



2-20 



Alac. Rank. 2-21 
11/30/87 



BAYGALL . Continued 

red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 
saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

Vines : 

muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

laurelleaf greenbriar Smilax laurifolia 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemium spp. 

catbriar Smilax bona-nox 

summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

sawbriar Smilax glauca 

common hempvine Mikania scandens 

climbing hydrangea Decumaria barbara 

Herbs : 

cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamoraea 

netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica 

royal fern Osmunda regalis 

false nettle Boehmeria cylindrica 

sword fern Dryopteris ludoviciana 

whorled pennywort Hydrocotyle verticillata 

lizard tail Saururus cernuus 

partridgeberry Mitchella repens 

primrose willow Ludwigia peruviana 

water hoarhound Lycopus rubellus 

common dayflower Commelina diffusa 

widespread maiden fern Thelypteris normalis 

water hemlock Cicuta mexicana 

marsh purslane Ludwigia palustris 

dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum 

water pennywort Hydrocotyle umbellata 

marsh fern Thelypteris palustris 

Grasses and Grasslikes : 

wetwoods panicum Dichantheliuni commutatum 
forked panicum Dicantheliura dichotomum 
river cane Arundinaria gigantea 
woodsgrass Oplismenus setarius 
globespike sedge Cyperus globulosus 
soft rush Juncus effusus 



2-21 



Mac. Rank. 2-22 
11/30/87 



BAYGALL. Continued 

roadgrass Eleocharis baldwinii 
warty panicum Panicum verrucosum 
sand pond nutgrass Cyperus haspan 
sour paspalura Panicum conjugatuin 
floodplain beakrush Rhynchospora miliacea 
tufted nutsedge Cyperus tenuifolius 

Mosses and Lichens : 

Sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp. 

Epiphytes : 

Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides 

ball moss Tillandsia recurvata 

resurrection fern Polypodium polypodioides 

serpent fern Phlebodium aureum 

red needleleaf airplant Tillandsia setacea 

shoestring fern Vittaria lineata 



2-22 



Alac. Rank. 2-23 
11/30/87 



VET FLATWOODS 



Trees : 



slash pine Pinus elliottii 
pond pine Pinus serotina 
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 
loblolly bay Gordonia lasianthus 
dahoon Ilex cassine 
sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 
sourgum Nyssa sylvatica 
longleaf pine Pinus palustris 
swamp bay Persea palustris 
pondcypress Taxodium ascendens 
diamondleaf oak Quercus laurifolia 
water oak Quercus nigra 
"live oak Quercus virginiana 
sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Shrubs : 



wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 

gallberry Ilex glabra 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

fetterbush Lyonia fefruginea 

shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

dahoon holly Ilex cassine 

bog myrtle Myrica heterophylla 

large gallberry Ilex coriacea 

shiny blueberry Vaccinium myrsinites 

maleberry Lyonia ligustrina 

Walter viburnum Viburnum obovatum 

highbush blackberry Rubus argutus 

dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa 

dwarf huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa 

saltbush Baccharis spp. 

wicky Kalmia hirsuta 

poison sumac Toxicodendron vernix 

Vines : 

laurelleaf greenbriar Smilax laurifolia 

catbriar Smilax bona-nox 

coral greenbriar Smilax walteri 

common greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens 

swamp jessamine Gelsemium rankinii 



2-23 



Mac. Rank. 2-24 
11/30/87 



VET FLATWOODS. Continued 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 
peppervine Ampelopsis arborea 
poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 



Herbs 



St. John's wort Hypericum spp . 

redroot Lachnanthes caroliniana 

candyweed Polygala lutea 

meadow beauty Rhexia spp. 

yellow colic root Aletris lutea 

pink sundew Drosera capillaris 

yellow-eyed grass Xyris spp. 

hatpins Eriocaulon compressum 

common pipewort Eriocaulon decangulare 

marsh pink Sabatia spp. 

white sabatia Sabatia brevifolia 

marsh fleabane Pluchea spp. 

Atlantic blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium atlanticum 

yellow star grass Hypoxis spp. 

Virginia chain fern Wopdwardia virginiana 

netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 

Catesby lily Lilium catesbaei 

bluehearts Buchnera floridana 

grass pink Calopogon tuberosus 

snowy orchid Platanthera nivea 

bog white violet Viola lanceolata 

grassleaf ladies' tresses Spiranthes praecox 

sunbonnets Chaptalia tomentosa 

cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnmomea 

royal fern Osmunda regalis 

bigelowia Bigelowia nudata 

white bachelor's button Polygala balduini 

drumheads Polygala cruciata 

candelabra milkwort Polygala cymosa 

wild bachelor's button Polygala nana 

Florida tickseed Coreopsis leavenworthii 

common tickseed Coreopsis gladiata 

Smith's tickseed Coreopsis floridana 

water dropwort Oxypolis filiformis 

Atamasco lily Zephyranthes atamasco 

blue butterwort Pinguicula caerula 

yellow butterwort Pinguicula lutea 

small butterwort Pinguicula pumila 



2-24 



Mac. Rank. 2-25 
11/30/87 



VET FLATWOODS. Continued 

musky mint Hyptis alata 

bog buttons Lachnocaulon spp. 

shoe buttons Syngonanthus flavidulus 

water primrose Ludwigia spp. 

giant ironweed Veronia gigantea 

gerardia Agalinis spp. 

piriqueta Piriqueta caroliniana 

glades lobelia Lobelia glandulosa 

Grasses and Grasslikes: 

wiregrass Aristida striata 

toothache grass Ctenium aromaticum 

bottlebrush threeawn Aristida spiciformis 

chalky bluestem Andropogon capillipes 

little blue raaidencane Amphicarpuin muhlenbergianuni 

Florida threeawn Aristida rhizomophora 

whitetop sedge Dichromena colorata 

star rush Dichromena latifolia 

bluejoint panicum Panicum tenerura 

redtop panicum Panicum rigidulum . 

forked panicum Dicanthelium dichotomum 



2-25 



Mac. Rank. 2 -26 
11/30/87 



HYDRIC HAMMOCK 
Trees: 

cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 
diamondleaf oak Quercus laurifolia 
water oak Quercus nigra 
red maple Acer rubrum 
ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 
sugarberry Celtis laevigata 
red cedar Juniperus silicicola 
sweetgum Liquidambar stryaciflua 
loblolly pine Pinus taeda 
sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 
swamp bay Persea palustris 
live oak Quercus virginiana 
blackgum Nyssa biflora 
magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 
dahoon holly Ilex cassine 
swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 
slash pine Pinus elliottii 
green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 
red mulberry Morus rubra 
American elm Ulmus americana 
Shumard oak Quercus shumardii 
sugar maple Acer saccharura 
American holly Ilex opaca 
persimmon Diospyros virginiana 
basswood tilia americana 
winged elm Ulmus alata 
pond pine Pinus serotina 
cedar elm Ulmus crassifolia N 

Shrubs : 



wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 
blue palmetto Sabal minor 
may haw Crataequs aestivalis 
needle palm Rhapidophyllura hystrix 
beautyberry Callicarpa americana 
gallberry Ilex glabra 

highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosura 
highbush blackberry Rubus argutus 
stiff-cornel dogwood Cornus foemina 
Walter viburnum Viburnum obovatura 
possum haw Ilex decidua 
shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 



2-26 



Mac. Rank. 2-27 
11/30/87 



HYDRIC HAMMOCK. Continued 

saw palmetto Serenoa repens 
elderberry Sambucus canadensis 
sprawling buckthorn Bumelia reclinata 
red buckeye Aesculus pavia 
Virginia willow Itea virginica 
saltbush Baccharis halimifolia 
Sebastian bush Sebastiana ligustrina 
bluff privet Forestiera ligustrina 
green haw Crataegus viridis 
parsley haw Crataegus marshallii 

Vines : 

poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

greenbriar Smilax spp. 

summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

trumpet creeper Campsis radicans 

muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

supplejack Berchemia scandens 

pepper vine Ampelopsis arborea 

Carolina jessamine Gelsemium spp. 

climbing hydrangea Decumaria barbara 

common hemp vine Mikania scandens 

Herbs : 



sword fern Dryopteris ludoviciana 

royal fern Osmunda regalis 

cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnaraomea 

purple elephant's foot Elephantopus nudatus 

Florida violet Viola affinis 

musky mint Hyptis alata 

lizard tail Saururus cernuus 

Atlantic blue -eyed grass Sisyrinchium atlanticum 

horseweed Conza canadensis 

white ageratum Ageratina jucunda 

wood fern Thelypteris spp. 

milk pea Galactia spp. 

beggairweed Desmodiura spp. 

netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica 

wild petunia Ruellia caroliniensis 

lyre-leaf sage Salvia lyrata 

snakeroot Sanicula canadensis 



2-27 



Mac. Rank. 2 -28 
11/30/87 



HYDRIC HAMMOCK. Continued 

creeping cucumber Melothria pendula 
dichondra Dichondra caroliniensis 
water pepper Polygonuni hydropiperoides 
St. Andrew's cross Hypericum hypericoides 
jack-in- the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllura 
partridgeberry Mitchella repens 
dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium 
bedstraw Galium spp . 
butterweed Senecio glabellus 
pennywort Hydrocotlye spp. 
swamp stargrass Hypoxis leptocarpa 
giant ironweed Veronia gigantea 
Atamasco lily Zephyranthes atamasco 
grape fern Botrychium spp. 
dayf lower Commelina spp. 

Grasses and Grasslikes: 

Carex Carex spp . 

spikegrasses Chasmanthiura spp. 

woodsgrass Oplismenus setarius 

St. Augustine grass Stenotaphrum secundatum 

wetwoods panicum Dicanthelium commutatum 

redtop panicum Panicum rigidulum 

Florida paspalum Paspalum floridanum 

flat sedge Cyperus spp, 

rush Juncus spp. 

southern cutgrass Leersia hexandra 

nimblewill Muhlenbergia schreberi 

river cane Arundinaria gigantea 

tall nutgrass Scleria triglomerata 

beakrush Rhynchospora spp. 

Epiphytes : 

resurrection fern Polypodiura polypodioides 
ball moss Tillandsia recurvata 
serpent fern Phlebodium aureum 
Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides 
grey needleleaf airplant Tillandsia bartraraii 
red needleleaf airplant Tillandsia setacea 
green fly orchid Epidendrum conopseum 
shoestring fern Vittaria lineata 



2-28 



Mac. Rank. 2-29 
11/30/87 



2.3 FAUNA 

We have not prepared animal lists for each natural community because 
animals tend to use a wider range of habitats than plants do. As a general 
rule, they require a dry, moist, or wet environment, but are not picky about 
the particulars. (This generalization would not apply in a region with 
dramatic differences in soil type, altitude, salinity, etc., but it is a 
reasonably good rule of thumb in Alachua County.) 

There are three groups of animals that are of special concern to 
conservation planning here . 

One of these is the fauna of dry habitats, which include Upland Pine 
Forest, Xeric Hammock, Sandhill, Scrub, and Scrubby Flatwoods . These animals 
evolved in an environment that covered vast contiguous areas and was 
constantly shaped by fire. Hence they are doing poorly in the face of 
habitat fragmentation and fire suppression. The county's last red-cockaded 
woodpeckers died out a few years ago, and biologists fear the scrub jays are 
now gone. Fox squirrel populations are declining precipitously. Gopher 
tortoises and all their dependent commensal organisms are decreasing, as are 
Bachman's sparrows, kestrels, pine snakes, short- tailed snakes, and many 
other species such as bluebirds and indigo snakes, which are not quite so 
dependent on xeric habitats, but still use them extensively. 



Another group of animals we need to be especially aware of are the large 
wide-ranging mammals. Bears, otters, and bobcats cannot survive on small 
tracts. Without extensive networks of natural areas we will lose these 
species as we have panthers and red wolves. 

The third group is threatened because they have adapted to the opposite 
extreme. These are the snails, crayfish, and insects that have inbred in one 
tiny habitat for so long that they have evolved into forms found nowhere 
else. If that one place is destroyed, the entire species is lost. These are 
typically invertebrates found in isolated sinks, springs, or caves. 



2-29 



Mac. Rank. 2-30 
11/30/87 



2.4 AIACHUA COUNTY DISTRIBUTION 

The following discussions relate the examples on the sites we have 
recommended to the distribution and quality of the community on a countywide 
basis . 

2.4.1 Scrub 

Scrub was never common in Alachua County. We now have less than 1,000 
acres, with no substantial tracts protected. There is a small patch in Oleno 
State Park. 

This community, which is virtually unique to Florida, was once very 
abundant along the central Florida ridge south of Alachua County and in 
coastal dune areas, but it is disappearing rapidly and has become a major 
conservation concern. Alachua County's scrubs are not nearly so diverse as 
those further south. 

Parchman Pond (600 acres) is the county's best scrub. Prairie Creek (100 
acres) is second-best.' The tracts on Watermelon Pond, Palm Point Hill, and 
Hornsby Springs are scientifically and educationally interesting, but too 
small to be meaningful preserves for this community. 

2.4.2 Sandhill 

Sandhill once covered nearly half of Alachua County, most abundantly in the 
southwest part of the county. Now we have 400 acres in San Felasco Hammock, 
tracts of no more than a few hundred acres in Austin Cary Memorial Forest, 
and small pieces in Morningside Nature Center, Paynes Prairie State 
Preserve, and Oleno State Park. Little of this is in good condition. Because 
it requires frequent fire, this community does not endure in patches too 
small too burn. Therefore, the above sites and those we recommend are all 
there is. 

This community is widespread throughout the southeastern coastal plain into 
central Florida, but has been severely degraded by fragmentation and fire 
suppression almost everywhere. 



2-30 



Mac. Rank. 2-31 
11/30/87 



Watermelon Pond is Alachua County's best sandhill site, with 1,600 acres in 
reasonably good condition and maybe 1,000 more rescorable. Kanapaha Prairie 
has 150 acres in good shape and Lochloosa Forest's Palatka Pond tract has 
120. Moss Lee Lake's 260 acres are not in quite such good condition. There 
are smaller pieces in the Hatchet Creek - Gum Root Swamp area. 

2.4.3 Xeric Hammock 

Alachua County probably has thousands of acres of xeric hammock, since this 
is what becomes of sandhills and scrubs that are too fragmented to burn. 
Thus this habitat is likely to be more extensive now than it was in the 
past. Paynes Prairie has 9.2 acres. Oleno has many small patches. 

Xeric hammock is widespread throughout the southeastern coastal plain and 
becoming more so. 

Alachua County's best xeric hammock is the 240-acre tract on Prairie Creek. 
The 200 acres of islands in Watermelon Pond is classified .as xeric hanimock, 
as is 80 acres of overgrown pineland at Hickory Sink. There are ecotonal 
patches of this habitat on Palm Point Hill and Chacala Pond. The 60 acres at 
Palatka Pond on Lochloosa Forest is of poor quality. 

2.4.4 Upland Pine Forest 

Upland pine forest was once abundant in a broad band from northwest to 
southwest across the county. Now we have 280 acres on Paynes Prairie and 
1,000 acres on San Felasco, most of which has gone so long without fire that 
restoration prospects are questionable. Oleno has 1,150 acres, but it is 
unclear how much of this is in Alachua County. 

There is upland pine forest in the Panhandle and further north, but in 
peninsular Florida it is restricted to Alachua and Marion counties. It is 
disappearing rapidly throughout its range due to fragmentation and fire 
suppression. 

Hickory Sink is Alachua County's best example of this habitat with 1,200+ 
acres in good condition and 1,000+ more that could be restored. There were 



2-31 



Mac. Rank. 2 -32 
11/30/87 



patches of this habitat on Serenola Forest, Domino Hammock, and Kanapaha 
Prairie, but they are too overgrown for restoration to be feasible. 

2.4.5 Mesic Hanmnock 

Mesic Hammock has always been restricted to relatively small areas because 
it cannot tolerate fire. It therefore naturally occurs only on islands, 
peninsulas, and the like where surrounding wetlands act as fire buffers. 
Old- growth hammocks on sites like this are extremely rare. Much of the 3,300 
acres of mesic hammock at San Felasco is this type of rare old forest. There 
are thousands more acres of mesic hammock in Alachua County, but very little 
else of that in preserves is genuinely old forest. Young hammocks are 
expanding rapidly on old agricultural lands and places that formerly burned. 
Oleno has 1,620 acres of varied mesic hammock, some of which is in the 
county. Paynes Prairie has 2,658 acres. Hundreds of small patches are more 
or less preserved in public and private woodlots and greenspace. 
Mesic hammock occurs throughout the southeastern coastal plain, but Alachua 
County is one of the richest parts of the region for this community. Our 
exceptionally fine hartmocks are thus of conservation concern as a state and 
national resource. 

San Felasco Hammock State Preserve incorporates Alachua County's best mesic 
hammock. Sugarfoot Hammock (160 acres) is next best. Hornsby Springs (180 
acres) and Fred Bear Hammock (100 acres) are also excellent. Barr Hammock 
has 900 acres of good mesic hammock and 1,500 acres that would be easily 
restorable. Buzzard's Roost (30 acres) is a very fine small tract. Domino 
Hammock (130 acres) is seriously degraded, but impressive. Kanapaha Prairie 
has 500 acres of scenic degraded habitat. Serenola Forest (100 acres) and 
Palm Point Hill (50 acres) are still good examples of the community. There 
are substantial areas of good hammock in the Cross Creek area. The 900+ 
acres on South LaCrosse Forest is relatively poor quality. North San Felasco 
(300 acres) would be restorable to a high quality forest over the long term. 

2.4.6 Slope Forest 

Alachua County's slope forests are restricted to the ravines in the 
northwest part of the county. None of this is now preserved. There are no 



2-32 



Mac. Rank. 2 -33 
11/30/87 



substantial restorable tracts other than those described in this report. 

Slope Forest are found in very restricted locations throughout the 
southeastern coastal plain. There are a few examples in Putnam and Volusia 
counties, and major concentrations west of Tallahassee, but Alachua County 
is the southernmost extension of the community. 

Mill Creek (1,100 acres ) is the county's best slope forest. Beech Valley 
(300 acres) was originally better, but has been seriously degraded. Rocky 
Creek (1,000 acres) is restorable. 

2.4.7 Mesic Flatwoods 

Mesic Flatwoods once covered large areas of Alachua County, especially 
north and east of Gainesville. Much of this area still looks somewhat 
similar to the original landscape, but the understory vegetation has been 
severely altered in most places. There are areas of natural flatwoods in 
Austin Cary Memorial Forest, Paynes Prairie State Preserve (315 acres), and 
San Felasco Hammock State Preserve (200 acres). There is a small tract in 
the Alachua County part of Oleno State Park. 

Mesic Flatwoods were originally extensive across the southeastern coastal 
plain and down into South Florida. Degraded types still are, but flatwoods 
with native understories are rapidly becoming scarce. 

Lochloosa Forest has Alachua County's best mesic flatwoods, the 860-acre 
tract at Palatka Pond. Shenks Flatwoods (700 acres) is next-best. The 260 
acres along upper Hatchet Creek is also excellent. Northeast Lake Altho 
Flatwoods consists of 240 acres in good condition and 300 acres that is 
restorable. Millhopper Flatwoods incorporates 300 acres of natural flatwoods 
and 300 acres that have been disturbed. Gum Root Swamp includes about 800 
acres of flatwoods of varying type and quality. There is a restorable 
100-acre piece on Barr hammock. Chacala pond has 10 acres. 

2.4.8 Scrubby Flatwoods 

The county's extensive areas of mesic flatwoods intergrade with wetter and 



2 -.3 3 



Mac. Rank. 2 -34 
11/30/87 

drier versions of the community so that it is difficult to estimate 
acreages separately. Scrubby flaewoods, the xeric type, have probably always 
been the least abundant. There is a 75 -acre area of scrubby flatwoods 
preserved on the Alachua County part of Oleno State Park. Paynes Prairie has 
70 acres. 

Scrubby flatwoods occur in xeric areas all over the southeastern coastal 
plain. Since, unlike wetter flatwoods, they are suitable habitat for 
burrowing animals like gopher tortoises, they are of particular value as 
wildlife habitat. 

The 100 acres of scrubby flatwoods at Prairie Creek could be the county's 
best, though comparable tracts may exist within the Paynes Prairie, Oleno, 
Lochloosa, Austin Gary, or Hatchet Creek - Gum Root Swamp areas. Barr 
hammock has 100 acres of degraded scrubby flatwoods. The 60 -acre South 
Melrose Flatwoods is a good, but perilously small, example of the community. 

2.4.9 Floodplain Fore^st 

Since Alachua County has only one substantial river, we have only one 
substantial area of floodplain forest: along the Santa Fe River. This system 
is still basically intact. Perhaps half the 4500-acre floodplain could be 
classified as floodplain forest. With the few patches along some of the 
smaller streams, this would bring the county's total acreage of this 
community to around 2500 acres. 

There were once blackwater streams with floodplains similar that of the 
Santa Fe in a number of places around the southeastern coastal plain, but 
river systems in as near-pristine condition as this have become quite rare. 

The Santa Fe River obviously has Alachua County's best floodplain forests, 
but the best example of a floodplain canebrake is in Mill Creek. 

2.4.10 Baygall 

Since baygalls are seepage areas, they only occur in small patches and 
strips and have never covered large areas of the local landscape. Paynes 



2-34 



Alac.Rank.2-35 
11/30/87 



Prairie has a total of 203 acres. 

Baygalls are coiimion scattered through the southeastern coastal plain down 
through central Florida. 



Alachua County's best baygalls are those along Hatchet Creek. The Mill Creek 
site incorporates 200 acres of this community. Barr Hammock has about 90 
acres. There are small areas in Lochloosa Forest and Millhopper Flatwoods . 

2.4.11 Wet Flatwoods 

The county's extensive areas of mesic flatwoods intergrade with wetter ^.r.d 
drier versions of the community so that it is difficult to estimate acreages 
separately. Wet flatwoods with slash pine are still abundant, though often 
degraded, but those dominated by pond pine are becoming scarce. Paynes 
Prairie has several small areas of pond pine flatwoods, but we were unable 
to locate any large tracts of this community. 

Wet flatwoods cover extensive areas of the southeastern coastal plain, but 
there are significant regional differences in the extremely diverse 
understory. Sites with high quality natural groundcover are becoming scarce. 

The 90-acre stand of pond pine at Kincaid Flatwoods, listed in 
Appendix 9.4, may be the county's best example of this community. There is 
also a good 100-acre tract on the Townsend Branch part of the Mill Creek 
site and another at Barr Hammock. Other small stands are probably scattered 
throughout the Hatchet Creek - Gum Root Swamp and Prairie Creek - Lochloosa 
Forest areas. 



2.4.12 Hvdric Hammock 

Hydric Hammock has always covered substantial areas of low land in Alachua 
County, but it has almost all been degraded by logging. Paynes Prairie has 
110 acres in excellent condition. 



2-35 



Mac. Rank. 2 -36 
11/30/87 

This community occurs throughout the southeastern coastal plain, but varies 
a great deal from one region to another. Le-/y County's outstanding Gulf 
Hammock forests are generally better examples of the types typical of this 
region than what Alachua County has. 

Prairie Creek's 150-acre tract is the county's best hydric hammock. The 
150-acre Orange Lake Palm Hammock in Lochloosa Forest is also outstanding. 
Several hundred acres of Barr Hammock could be classified as hydric hammock; 
this is of very variable quality, but some areas are excellent. Chacala Pond 
has a band of hydric hammock along the eastern shore. 

2.5 HABITAT- SPECIFIC CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS 

Each type of natural community must be protected and managed differently in 
order to mimic the way nature maintained it in the native landscape. A full 
discussion of management practices is beyond the scope of this study, but 
there are key points one should keep in mind. 

Scrub is adapted to caftastrophic fires 30-120+ years apart. The plants do 
not catch fire easily, but when conditions are dry enough they go up in a 
blazing crown fire. Then shrubs sprout from the roots, seeds germinate, and 
everything starts out fresh. Lichens, which do not tolerate trampling, are 
prominent in the scrub groundcover. 

Sandhills, f latwoods , and upland pine forests have a flammable wiregrass 
groundcover that carries a sweeping ground fire every few years. If they do 
not burn, they will grow up into hammocks. If a sandhill burns too seldom, 
it will become more like a scrub. Wiregrass is practically impossible to 
replant successfully and little is known about large scale restoration of 
pineland wildf lowers. Pines, on the other hand, are easy to replant. Hence a 
cutover pineland with an intact groundcover is a far more valuable natural 
area than a majestic stand of pines without wiregrass. Wiregrass, 
wildflowers, and most characteristic sandhill animals need sunshine and open 
space. If the shrubs and trees get too thick, these species will die out. 

Mesic hammocks and slope forests develop only on sites that have gone 



2-36 



Mac. Rank. 2-37 
11/30/87 

unburned for many years. They cannot tolerate fire without severe damage. 
Since roads, ditches, firefighters, etc. stop fires from spreading like they 
used to, hairjBOck is increasing rapidly. Hundred-year-old hardwood forests 
are commonplace and getting more so. Hammocks that have been growing on the 
same site for many thousands of years (like Sugarfoot and San Felasco) are 
much more diverse and extremely rare. Slope Forests are vulnerable to 
erosion if the ravine sides are trampled. 

Baygalls and seepage slopes depend upon moisture trickling down from 
upslope . The vegetation here is adapted to acidic low- nutrient conditions. 
Hence these systems are highly vulnerable to alterations in hydrology or 
water quality. 

Floodplain forests, wet f latwoods , and hydric hammocks all grow in sites 
that are frequently soggy and flood now and then. If drained, they will turn 
into mesic communities. If flooded for longer periods than they are 
accustomed, the trees will be stressed, perhaps even killed, and understory 
species may be eliminated. 



2-37 



Alac.Rank.3-1 
11/30/87 



3.0 SIGNIFICANT UPLAND ECOLOGICAL COMKUNITIES 

The individual site s'anmiaries that follow describe the sites we have 
identified as significant ecological communities appropriate for 
preservation strategy. The information presented here is primarily 
straightforward descriptive material, but we have included several 
assessments that may need clarification. 

The site's priority simply reflects where its rank fell in the computerized 
ranking evaluation described in Table 6.3.7. It is important to interpret 
these designations properly. '"Low" does not mean a site is of minimal value. 
Sites lacking substantial ecological merit were screened out before the 
ranking process began. We felt it was important to identify the best of the 
best, and that is what a "high" here means. "Low" just indicates a that an 
excellent site is not one of the very best. A wide range of sites are 
categorized as "medium." Those near the top of the "medium" range are not 
significantly weaker than many of the "high" sites, and those near the 
bottom are not substantially better than many of those labelled "low". 

To clarify planning options, we have included an assessment of preservation 
alternatives. Sites with a "yes" in this field are places where the 
integrity of the resource could be maintained by preserving only part of the 
site. We have not attempted to define what type of development would be 
acceptable on the less valuable portions of these sites, but we envision 
that carefully planned and monitored active recreation or cluster housing 
might work. Where we say "no" under Preservation Alternatives, it means that 
the site is so small, narrow, or sensitive that we cannot envision how any 
of it could be substantially developed without seriously degrading the 
resource. "Limited" means there are parts of the site that could be 
sacrificed, but we see potential conflicts between resource management needs 
and nearby development. The habitat may require burning, for example. 

Under Recommendations we describe the major management activities that will 
be necessary to maintain the quality of the ecological communities. We also 
indicate what features and areas of the site are most important to 
preserve. And, if we have any ideas as to possible mechanisms that might be 



3-1 



_^^- Alac.Rank.3-2 

11/30/87 

used to effect preservation of the site, we include those. A thorough 
analysis of funding options, landcu-ner inclinations, and other non- 
ecological concerns will be needed to define the most effective preservation 
strategy. Once the site is secure, a thorough resource inventory and a 
management plan will need to be prepared to assure that the site's 
ecological values continue to be preserved. We may indicate that regular 
burning will be needed, for example, but a detailed plan that specifies what 
kinds of fires should burn what areas on what schedule will eventually be 
required. 



3-2 



Mac. Rank. 3-3 
11/30/87 



The following one site records of the 29 significant upland ecological 
corpjnunities identified in this inventory. They are presented in 
descending order of their ranking. 

Site Rank Site Name (Number) Page Number 

1. Prairie Creek (40) 3-4 

2. Santa Fe River (32) 3-7 

3. Lochloosa Forest (11) 3-9 

4. Barr Hammock (27) 3-12 

5. Watermelon Pond (3) 3-15 

6. Hickory Sink (4) 3-18 

7. Sugarfoot Hammock (28) 3-21 

8. Chacala Pond (54) 3-24 

9. Mill Creek (7) 3-26 

10. Hatchet Creek (35) 3-30 

11. Parchman Pond Scrub (2) 3-32 

12. Hornsby Springs (12) 3-34 

13. Kanapaha Prairie (1) 3-37 

14. Gum Root Swamp (15) 3-39 

15. Millhopper Flatwoods (48) 3-41 

16. South LaCrosse Forest (24) 3-42 

17. Palm Point Hill (53) 3-43 

18. Fred Bear Hammock (42) 3-45 

19. Rocky Creek (22) 3-47 

20. Buzzard's Roost (6) 3-49 

21. Santa Fe Creek (17) 3-51 

22. North Santa Felasco Hammock (46) 3-53 

23. Shenks Flatwoods (19) 3-55 

24. Serenola Forest (26) 3-56 

25. Domino Hammock (56) 3-58 

26. Moss Lee Lake Sandhill (8) 3-60 

27. Beech Valley (36) 3-62 

28. Northeast Lake Altho Flatwoods (20) 3-64 

29. South Melrose Flatwoods (14) 3-66 



Figure 3.1 shows the approximate location of these sites, 



3-3 



5+ 



I ) 



. J ll! i ! ! 



i ii!yi!|iJiln||iJi,ilM!i|l4sOJJ.iMl?i 

i iiii;ii!if!iiiliHi!ii:;;ii!ii!h;i!!iii.'iiiii;iii;;!!ii!.;.:J:^^ 



' f 



+ J 



P FH .1, I,. 

:-■ Z li 'h 

g . 5 ;iii:='5 i|ri! HijliiiiK 

w wJ u- • i-I :( fr li ill . 





T5 



o 




J3 




E 




3 




-9" 




•" 




o 




•4-^ 




CO 








CJ 




o 




*-» 




c 




D 




E 




f— 


^"^ 


c 


w 


o 
C) 


>- 

o 








o 


ro 


_l 


o 




D> 


o 


O 


a: 


O 


* — ' 


o 




LU 


M 




a 


■D 




C 


la 


ra 


ra 


Q. 


X 


rD 






-o 


„_ 


c 


c 


ra 


TO 
O 


Q. 

3 



en c 



w 



TO 



r 
o| 

c — 

.2 .- 

— a 
ra j:; 

9 O 



CO 

3 

cn 



3-3a 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Prairie Creek 

MAP #: 40 

PRIORITY: High 

KEY FEATURES: Varied habitats. Excellent scrub and hydric hammock. 
Critical linkage for regional ecosystems. Important wildlife habitat. High 
recreational potential. 

COMMUNITY TYPE(S): Hydric Hammock, Scrub, Xeric Hammock, Mesic Hammock, 
Mesic Flatwoods, Scrubby Flatwoods , Strand Swamp, Baygall, Blackwater 
Stream, Swamp Lake, Basin Marsh, Dome. 

Preservation Alternatives: Limited. 

QUAD: Rochelle, Micanopy, Gainesville East 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TIGS, R21E, S30, S19, & parts of S20, S29, & S18; 
TIGS, R2GE, W 1/2 S3G, E 1/4 S14, N 1/2 S24, W part of S25, and unnumbered 
section to the south. 

DIRECTIONS: Between NeWnan's Lake and Paynes Prairie. Accessible via SR 20 
southeast from Gainesville or SR 234 northeast from Micanopy. 

SIZE: 3,7GO acres 

DESCRIPTION: Prairie Creek is a winding blackwater stream flowing from 
Newnan's Lake into the Camp Canal at the edge of Paynes Prairie. It is 
surrounded by a diverse variety of habitats including Alachua County's 
finest examples of xeric hammock, hydric hammock, and Florida's unique 
scrub . 

The scrub is mostly in the west half of Section 13 and the northwest 
quarter of Section 24. It covers about IGG acres with a dense lG-15' 
thicket of fetterbush and sand live oak growing on white sand with a good 
deal of saw palmetto and deermoss. Myrtle oak, Chapman's oak, gaylussacia, 
scrub blueberry, wild olive, scrub rush, and a number of other typical scrub 
species are present. Although there are a few scattered slash and loblolly 
pines, this site does not have the character or species composition of a 
transitional sandhill; it is clearly a long-established scrub community. 
Sand pine, rosemary, and other endemic scrub plants would probably thrive if 
introduced here. Scrub jays might also do well. The only animals we 
observed during our brief survey were rufous -sided towhee, bobwhite, 
southern fence lizard, and six-lined racerunner. 



3-4 



As discussed in the CAP.L proposal, Prairie -Croek has a number of 
important archaeological sices. In the course of our field work, we noted 
that site 8-A-356, an exceptionally valuable 6,000-year-old site in the 
southeast quarter of Section 13, is currently being ravaged by a pot-hunter. 

The best xeric hammock encompasses about 240 acres in the east quarter 
of Section 14 and the north half of Section 24, extending into Section 13. 
This is a very diverse mature forest of moderate density dominated by sand 
live oaks averaging 60' tall anc 1-2' dbh. It has a fairly dense subcanopy 
of hophornbeam and devil's walkingstick over a shrub layer of saw palmetto, 
sparkleberry , and beautyberry. There is a sparse groundcover of spikegrass, 
goldenrod, and other grasses and herbs. Other abundant species include 
pignut hickory, liur-1 cr..-:, and coral baan. Species present include 
dogwood, magnolia, indigo bush, bluff oak, wild olive, American holly, black 
cherry, and yaupon. 

The highest quality hydric hammock is the 150 acres in Section 19 
south of SR 20 and east of Prairie Creek, extending south into Section 30 
along the creek. This forest has a canopy dominated by magnificent 
towering live oaks with a relatively open interior and a spikegrass carpet. 
This area appears to have been selectively logged long ago; loblolly pines, 
sweetgums and red maples typical of second- growth are abundant. The diverse 
herbs mixed with the spikegrass include several uncommon species. 

The fauna of the Prairie Creek area is described in detail in the 
Prairie Creek CARL proposal. It is particularly noteworthy that this site 
incorporates breeding locations of ospreys, bald eagles, sandhill cranes, 
gopher tortoises, and wading birds. 

OWNER: The tracts within this site are held by approximately 25 different 
landowners with a variety of motivations. The Prairie Creek CARL proposal 
details the ownership of the tracts within the boundaries of that proposal. 
The scrub and xeric hammock tracts we suggest adding are listed under 
Greenberg & Greenberg/Jerevan, Inc., C.F. and Adelaide Ahmann, P.R. Marcus, 
and R.S. and C. Mackenzie. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: 

The scrub are is slated for development. There has been discussion of 
extending a road through this area which would fragment this habitat even if 
it is not cleared. 

The Owens Illinois tracts were presumably purchased as timberlands. 
The other owners' plans are unknown. 

With continuing support from the county, the Prairie Creek CARL 
proposal will probably eventually be purchased by the state. The bulk of it 
is likely to be incorporated into Paynes Prairie State Preserve, but eastern 
segments may be included in the proposed Lochloosa State Forest. It has 
been suggested that the area around the Newnan's Lake outlet be managed as a 
county park with facilities for picnicking, canoeing, fishing, etc. The old 
Seaboard Coastline railroad right of way is being acquired by the Florida 



3-5 



Department of Natural Resources as a trail corridor for hiking, horseback 
riding, and bicycling. 

Most of the pinelands in this area are quite overgrown. If 
restoration emphasizing frequent prescribed burning is not begun soon, 
these areas will grow into hammocks. The scrub is liable to eventually 
need fire prevent conversion to xeric hammock, but it could probably go 
another 5-10 years or more without burning before suffering irreversible 
effects. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

The county should actively support the Prairie Creek CARL proposal and 
recommend expansion of the project's boundaries to take in the scrub and 
xeric hammock to the northwest in the west half of Section 13 and the east 
quarter of Section 14. The state should be encouraged to look carefully at 
possibilities for expanding the project boundaries to the east and 
northeast, exploring options for agreements or easements to assure 
preservation of the hammocks and pinelands owned by Zetrouer, Putz , and 
others. (Zetrouer and Putz have both indicated willingness to give options 
or easements to The Nature Conservancy.) To facilitate management, the 
southern part of this project should extend to SR 234 wherever possible. 

Prairie Creek's greatest value is as linkage connecting the Paynes 
Prairie, Lochloosa Forest, and Newnan' s Lake systems. To maximize this 
function, the natural area here should connect Paynes Prairie and Lochloosa 
Forest along a broad front and extend as far north as possible around 
Newnan ' s Lake . 

Additional lands recommended by the Paynes Prairie staff should be 
included. Craig Parenteau is said to be evaluating boundary refinements. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes Bob Simons 
submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI . Mark Brown, Jack Putz. "The 
Prairie creek CARL Project", proposal prepared by Mark Brown and Richard 
Hamann and submitted to DNR by the ACCARTF August 1987. 11/6/87 field 
observations by Linda Duever and Reed Noss. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps and preliminary species lists 
prepared by KBN 11/87 and submitted to Alachua County Department of 
Planning and Development. Sources mentioned in the Prairie Creek CARL 
proposal. Carl J. Clausen's 1964 thesis on Indian site 8-A-356. 

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-6 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Santa Fe River 

MAP #: 32 

PRIORITY: High 

KEY FEATURES: Near-pristine blackwater river. County's best floodplain 
communities. Many unusual species. Critical regional ecosystem 
linkage. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Blackwater Stream, Floodplain Swamp, Floodplain 
Forest, River Floodplain Lake, Spring Run Stream, Slope Forest, Bog 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. 

QUAD: High Springs, Mikesville, Worthington Springs, Brooker, 
Monteocha, Waldo, Keystone Heights 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: Waldo: T7S, R20E, S25; T7S, R21E, S30, S31, 
S32, S33, S34, S35, S36; T8S, R21E, Si, S12, S13; T8S, R22E, S6, S5, 
S8, S7, SIS; parts of T7S, R20E, S17, SIB, S19, S20, S28, S27, S34, 
S35, S36; parts of T7S, R17E, Sll, S12, SI; T6S, R17E, S36; T6S, R18E, 
S31, S32, S28, S27. Parts of T6S, R18E, S27, S35, S26, S36; T6S, R19E, 
S31, S32, S33; T7S, R19E, S4, S3, SIO, S15, S14, S13. 

DIRECTIONS: Take any road to the county's northern border. The river is 
the county line. 

SIZE: 4,500 acres 

DESCRIPTION: The Santa Fe is a beautiful blackwater river with 
associated swamps, springs, bluffs, and ravines that provide good 
habitat for many northern species that do not extend further south into 
Florida. 

The river has its headwaters in Santa Fe Swamp, an immense 
Okefenokee-like bog in the northeast corner of the county. This nearly 
impenetrable thicket is a very important wildlife area with good 
habitat for bears and alligators. This wetland drains the Trail Ridge 
refugium which is habitat for a number of endemic wildf lowers. 

The river flows generally westward and joins the Suwannee about 
ten miles northwest of High Springs. The upper part drains flatwoods 
and therefore carries clear, dark, acidic waters. This area has 
wildlife like that of the Osceola National Forest. Several reptiles and 
amphibians, including the canebrake rattlesnake, come near their 
southern limits in this floodplain ecosystem. 

Past its junction with the New River, the Santa Fe takes on an 
important function in aquifer recharge as it flows along the 
piezometric surface of the aquifer. Through this central section, the 
floodplain is up to a mile wide in places and supports a mosaic of 
swamps and floodplain forests, including stands of black willow, river 
birch, and overcup oak at the southern limits of their distributions. 



3-7 



The Santa Fe's floodplain swamps and forests are the only examples of 
these communities in Alachua County and among the best in peninsular 
Florida. 

At Oleno State Park, the river goes underground and emerges from 
the limestone as a much larger and more calcareous stream dominated by 
clear spring water. As the river continues westward, spring runs pour 
more and more clear water into it. This stretch is the southeastern 
limit for the American beaver, alligator snapping turtle, red-bellied 
watersnake, and spotted bullhead. The redeye chub, Suwannee bass, and 
Suwannee cooter are found only in the streams, springs and spring runs 
of this region. The aquatic caves support a fauna of rare subterranean 
organisms, 

OWNER: Multiple, but still mostly large ownerships. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: The Santa Fe's swamps and sloughs fall under the 
technical definition of wetlands and thus receive certain regulatory 
protections, but many of areas of the slightly higher floodplain 
forests may be denied the relative security of wetlands legal status. 
Continuing residential and recreational development is the likely fate 
of these lands and especially the bluffs and steeper slopes that bring 
genuine uplands into close proximity to the river. Chopping up the 
river corridor with lawns, fences, and the territories of barking dogs 
would destroy the integrity of the Santa Fe system. River systems are 
inherently linear and the biota there is adapted to a regular flow of 
not only water, but nutrients, organisms, and genetic material. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : ' 

The entire length of the Santa Fe floodplain should be preserved 
in its natural state. It would probably be a good candidate for state 
funding and water management district or state preserve management. The 
area could easily accommodate canoeing, hiking, horseback riding, and 
similar appropriately managed passive recreation activities. 

We wrote up several areas incorporating tributaries of the Santa 
Fe as individual sites. Plans for protection of these places should be 
integrated with those for the river as a whole. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: FNAI . Portions of the Suwannee River 
Coalition's 1983 special report to DER on the Santa Fe River System re 
proposed designation of the Santa Fe as Outstanding Florida Waters. 
NCFRPC 1973 Open Space and Recreation Study. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: FDE: Helen Hood, Jane Walker. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc, P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000, 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Lochloosa Forest 

MAP #: 11 

PRIORITY: High 

KEY FEATURES: Large size. Important linkage for regional ecosystems. 
Bear and eagle habitat. Four special areas: Palatka Pond (county's best 
flatv7oods), Orange Lake Palm Hammock (exceptional hydric hammock), 
River Styx (wood stork rookery) , Magnesia Springs (only location for 
endangered snail) . 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods , Cypress Strand, Hydric Hammock, 
Sandhill, Xeric Hammock, Baygall, Depression Marsh, Basin Marsh, Spring 
Run Stream, Flatwood/Prairie Lake, Basin Swamp, Dome. 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. Needs fire. Should not be 
fragmented. 

QUAD: Roche lie 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION : 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR 20 east towards Hawthorne. Turn right onto CR 325. 
This goes through middle of site. 

SIZE: 31,300 acres nI 

DESCRIPTION: Huge tract of flatwoods surrounding Lochloosa Lake. Most 
of site is managed timber, but there are several high quality natural 
areas: 

1) Palatka Pond 

This 1,280 parcel has 860 acres of outstanding mesic 
flatwoods. Longleaf dominates in the drier areas and slash pine in the 
wetter places. The pines are average about 1' dbh and 80- 90' tall. Saw 
palmetto, gallberry, and huckleberry are the most abundant shrubs in 
the open understory. The groundcover is a mixture of wiregrass, 
andropogon, maidencane, and wildf lowers, including yellow-eyed grass, 
hatpins, hooded pitcher plant, redroot, blackroot, vanilla plant, 
meadow beauty, milkwort, elephant's foot, trilisa, and lavender 
paintbrush. CR 325 has been designated an Alachua County Wildf lower 
Road and many more species have been recorded in this area. Wildlife 
observed in this habitat include deer, rufous -sided towhee, eastern 
phoebe, pine warbler, yellowthroat , brown-headed nuthatch, red-headed 
woodpecker, and pine woods treefrog. 

There is also about 120 acres of sandhill in this area. This 
habitat has large longleaf pines and scattered turkey oaks. The 
understory is open with a good wiregrass groundcover. Scrub blueberry 
and gopher apple are common in the sparse shrub layer. Gopher tortoises 
are plentiful here and indigo snakes have been recorded nearby. 



3-9 



The Palatka Pond area also has 60 acres of xeric hammock, 200 
acres of swamp and bayhead, 30 acres of ponds, and 10 acres of marsh. 

2) Orange Lake Palm Hammock 

This is a very old hydric hammock dominated by 60-90' tall 
cabbage palms. Live oak is increasingly prominent back from the lake. 
Sweetgum and green ash are also common. Saltbush and wax myrtle are the 
most abundant shrubs, but bluff privet is plentiful and there are 
occasional specimens of sprawling buckthorn and parsley haw. Due to the 
site's warm microclimate, epiphytes are more abundant and varied than 
usual this far north. 

Animals observed here include otter, deer, osprey, bald eagle (at 
least one nest), white ibis, and black racer. 

3) River Styx 

A fine cypress scrand with a major colony of endangered wood 
storks. Osprey nests. 

4) Magnesia Springs 

Spring developed as a swimming area. The free -mouth hydrobe 
snail C Aphaostracon chalarogyrus) is abundant here, but has never been 
found anywhere else. 

Lochloosa Forest is valuable habitat for wildlife, including 
wide-ranging species that cannot be supported by smaller preserves. 
This is the only place in the county still inhabited by bears other 
than chance wanderers. Canebrake rattlesnakes reach their extreme 
southern limit along Lochloosa Creek, Approximately four pairs of 
eagles nest in the part of the forest between Lochloosa Lake and 
Orange Lake and there are about a dozen to the southeast beyond the 
site boundary. Several pairs of sandhill cranes nest along the site 
boundary in Hay Lake and Fish Pond. There is still a population of fox 
squirrels near Watson Prairie. 

OWNER: The 1986 ownership map indicates that Owens-Illinois owns 
6,000 acres within the CARL proposal as well as Lochloosa Creek. We 
understand that a large part of this property was sold in 1987. 
Franklin Crates, Inc. and Concora Corp. own the River Styx. J.T. 
Goethe owns the Palatka Pond tract. There are about a dozen smaller 
ownerships. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Most of this site lies within the proposed Lochloosa 
State Forest and will probably be purchased through the state CARL 
program in the next year or so. Natural habitat enhancement is not 
always a high-priority management objective for such forests, so state 
forest status does not guarantee that the ecological values of the 
natural uplands will be maintained. 

The very important Palatka Pond tract is under different ownership 
and was therefore originally excluded from the area proposed for 
purchase. It could be logged and/or diced for commercial forestry at 
any time. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Support state acquisition of the Lochloosa State 
Forest CARL proposal, then promote planning and funding to assure that 



3-10 



sandhills and flatwoods are burned frequently and native understories 
are maintained and restored as appropriate. 

The CARL boundaries should be adjusted to include the Palatka Pond 
tract, the P^iver Styx swamp, Magnesia Springs, and Lochloosa Creek. 

Coordinate with Marion County to maintain natural linkages between 
the ecosystems of the Lochloosa and Ocala forests. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes for Palatka 
Pond Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI , including 
5/3/83 field survey notes and species lists for Orange Lake Palm 
Hammock by Bob Simons and Walter Judd. FNAI. Helen Hood. 1986 Annual 
Report of the CARL Committee. NCFRPC Green Plan Inventory. Fred 
Thompson. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Lochloosa State Forest CARL proposal and files. Jim Brady. Jim Rodgers . 
Wayne Marion. Steve Nesbitt. Bill Frankenberger . Paul Moler. Sources 
cited in FNAI records: U82MOL01, A85MOL02FL, B68THO01, B77ROS01, 
S67THOSM, S63THOSM, FGFWFC annual bald eagle nest summary. Notes and 
collection records from Archie Carr's field trips. Sources cited in 
Green Plan: Dave Scott, Lovett Williams, Clark Cross, Bill Schlitzkus 
of Owens-Illinois. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-11 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Barr Hammock - 

MAP #: 27 

PRIORITY: High 

KEY FEATURES: Varied high quality hammock. Good pond pine flatwoods. 
Large size. Good potential for greenbelt connections, low cost 
management, multiple recreational uses. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Hydric Hammock, Wet Flatwoods, Mesic 
Flatwoods, Scrubby Flatwoods, Baygall, Scrub, Basin Marsh 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes, 

QUAD: Micanopy, Flemington, Arredondo 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS , R20E, S19, S30, S28, S29, & parts of W 
1/2 of S27; TllS, R19E, S24, S25, S36, & E 1/8 of S35 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR 234 west from Micanopy under 1-75. Bear right at 
fork. Go one mile. Turn right and drive one and a half miles through 
Micanopy Hammock subdivision. Center of site is to the north. Need 
landowner's permission and key to enter. 

SIZE: 3,000 acres 

DESCRIPTION: This is a low, flat band of varied high quality hammock 
and flatwoods lying between two scenic prairies. All the hammock has 
been cut over to some extent, but the part bordering Levy Prairie is in 
fine condition and the rest is restorable. 

About 150 acres of hydric hammock along the central part of the 
Levy Prairie shoreline has a very unusual species composition. This is 
one of the few peninsular Florida forest dominated by swamp chestnut 
oak. Shumard oak, a very uncommon species, is quite plentiful here. 
Pignut hickory, live oak, sugarberry, ironwood, and cabbage palm are 
frequent. Parts of the forest have a more-or-less closed 80+' canopy. 
In other areas the canopy is very uneven with maybe 50 percent 
coverage. Hawthorn, blue palmetto, and blackberry grow in the shrub 
layer. 

The hydric hammock grades imperceptibly into the mesic hammock 
that covers most of the site. This habitat varies from second-growth 
thickets of oaks and young loblolly pines to stands of young to mature 
hardwoods with occasional grand old live oaks. Water oak, sweetgum, 
pignut hickory, and ironwood are the most abundant trees. The 
understory varies from open and parklike to densely shrubby. Swamp 
chestnut oak, white ash, winged elm, persimmon, and blackgum are among 
the more common trees. Highbush blackberry, beautyberry, and 
stiff -cornel dogwood, are numerous in the shrub layer. There is a good 
population of the rare shrub, Godfrey's privet. The plentiful vines 
include greenbriar, muscadine, Carolina jessamine, summer grape, poison 
ivy, and Virginia creeper. Partridgeberry , carex, woodsgrass, 



3-12 



spikegrass, and elephant's foot are common in the varied groundcover. 

The wet flatwoods cover about 100 acres, mostly in an east-west 
band across the middle of Section 28 and into Section 27. This is an 
open stand of mixed slash and pond pines, some about seven years old 
and some much older. It has a shrubby- 1-5' understory including shiny 
lyonia, wicky, saw palmetto, red chokeberry, tarflower, and sand live 
oak. 

The wet flatwoods grade into about 100 acres of mesic flatwoods 
to the south. This area has been site-prepped and bedded for pine 
production and planted with slash pines now about seven years old. 
There are still patches of saw palmetto, shiny lyonia, and wiregrass, 
so restoration would be relatively easy. 

As the land gets drier further to the south, the mesic flatwoods 
grade into scrubby flatwoods. About 100 acres across the south edge of 
Section 28 and into Section 27 was also site-prepped and planted to 
slash pine about seven years ago. The understory here has sand live 
oak, shiny lyonia, and some saw palmetto, bracken, wiregrass and 
reindeer moss. Gopher tortoises are abundant in this habitat. 

Just southeast of the center of Section 28 there is a five-acre 
patch of scrub. This is a dense 20' thicket of sand live oak and 
fetterbush with an understory of saw palmetto, scrub rush, and reindeer 
moss . 

Scattered through the site are depressions with bayhead seepage 
communities. These typically have a tall dense forest of medium- large 
trees over a fern- dominated groundcover. Blackgum, loblolly bay, and 
sweetbay are the usual trees. The shrub layer includes shiny lyonia, 
gallberry, and swamp haw. The common ferns are netted chain fern, 
Virginia chain fern, cinnamon fern, and royal fern. 

We saw kestrels and bald eagles on the site. Two eagle nests have 
been documented. About six pairs of sandhill cranes nest in Levy 
Prairie and about twelve pairs in Ledwith, half of them on the Alachua 
County side. Hunters say the deer population is good. 

OWNER: Container Woodlands, Inc. owns most of the site. V.E. Whitehurst 
& Sons, Inc. owns most of Levy Prairie, the north and east sides of 
Section 29, the northern part of Section 28, and the north half of 
Section 27 west of the interstate. Thelma Perry owns the southern half 
of Section 27. The D.R. Zetrouer heirs own most of Ledwith Prairie, Mud 
Prairie, and the forests in between, including all of sections 35, 36, 
and 31, as well as the wetland southwest third of Section 30. Smith and 
Smith own the strip of forest around the southwest corner of Levy 
Prairie. Julia Hudson owns 92 acres in the southwest corner of Section 
30. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: The site has proven unsatisfactory for pine 
production due to hardwood competition. High-density residential 
development would probably not be feasible because of the site 
modifications that would be necessitated by the high water table. This 
is fertile land, but too wet to be considered prime pasture. It might 
eventually go into some type of agriculture, but haphazard ranchette 
development is the most likely scenario, since this is an area with a 
rapidly increasing demand for rural homesites. 

The Zetrouer and Whitehurst lands are liable to stay just as they 
are indefinitely. Zetrouer' s plans are unstated, but he is said to be 



3-13 



sympathetic to conservation. Vhitehurst is unlikely to be willing to 
sell. He could decide to develop his lands agriculturally. The other 
ovmers' intentions are unknown. 

Unless a regular burning program is maintained, the flatwoods will 
soon grow into hammock and the site's habitat variety will be 
substantially decreased. The scrub also needs to be burned soon. 

Barr Hammock has a tremendous number of armadillos. These 
non-native animals damage vegetation and devastate populations of 
certain invertebrates, reptiles, and other small ground- dwelling 
animals. They will continue to degrade the site until an effective 
control program is implemented. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : Barr Hammock is conveniently located very near the 
Micanopy 1-75 interchange and should be considered as a potential 
county park. The most heavily cutcver areas are quite flat and, if they 
are not too wet for playing fields to be constructed economically, 
might be good areas for active recreation. The better quality forests 
should be reserved for passive recreation and nature study. Excellent 
horseback riding trails would be easy to develop along the grassy roads 
that lace the area. 

Barr Hammock is especially valuable in a regional ecology context 
because it forms a potential natural system linkage between the 
Kanapaha Prairie uplands and the uplands in the southwestern corner of 
Paynes Prairie State Preserve. Any park or development plan should 
maintain this broad band of natural habitat along the south shore of 
Levy Prairie. 

Ideally, a park here should include Levy and Ledwith prairies or 
at least be established in conjunction with a plan to restore/maintain 
these wetlands to the greatest degree feasible. A park would be 
enhanced by including canoeing and fishing access to prairie lake 
areas . 

Disruptive activities should be kept away from eagle nest areas. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8-10/87 field survey notes Bob 
Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI . Mike Campbell. Helen 
Hood. 10/5/87 field observations by Reed Noss. 10/30/87 field 
observations by Linda Duever and Jim Newman. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps and preliminary species lists 
prepared by KBN 11/87 and submitted to Alachua County Department of 
Planning and Development. Steve Nesbitt. David Hall. Joel Smith. Don ' 
Dunn and Bob Mowbray (904/732-2241) and Dale Rye (904/495-2660) of 
Container. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-14 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Watermelon Pond 

MAP #: 3 

PRIORITY: High 

KEY FEATURES: Excellent and extensive sandhill. Unusual scrub. Scenic 
marsh/lake complex. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Sandhill, Scrub, Basin Marsh, Wet Prairie, Sinkhole 
Lake, Sandhill Upland Lake, Xeric Hammock 

QUAD: Archer, Newberry SW 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes, on disturbed areas, if it does not 
interfere with fire management or habitat continuity. 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS, R17E, SI, S2, S4, S5, S9 & most of E 1/2 
of S8; TIGS, R17E, S 1/2 of S32 & S 1/2 of S33. 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR 45 two miles northwest of Archer. Turn left and go 
two miles. Eastern core is to the south. Or, take CR 337 south from 
Newberry. Go six and a half miles. Western core is to the east. 

SIZE: 4,880 

DESCRIPTION:^ .Watermelon Pond is a -shallow high-quality mesotrophic 
lake with no outlet. It has widely fluctuating water levels and 
therefore broad irregular borders of maidencane- dominated prairie with 
patches of sand cord grass, yellow lotus, and a variety of other 
wetland species. The lake apparently serves to recharge the Floridan 
Aquifer through the porous limestone beneath its basin. 

The upland portions of the site are in two core areas: 

1) The eastern core encompasses 1,280 acres in TllS, R17E, 
sections 1 and 2. 

There is an 800-acre tract of healthy sandhill here. The canopy is 
widely scattered young mature longleaf with numerous turkey oaks . The 
shrub layer is largely open with some sand live oak and saw palmetto, 
abundant shining sumac, and a few rosemary bushes. Wiregrass dominates 
the groundcover, which includes bracken, dog fennel, and such 
wildf lowers as greeneyes , dog tongue, butterfly weed, sandhill 
milkweed, blackroot, sandhill croton, queen's delight, sand 
blackberry, and gopher apple. There are some young planted slash pines 
and patches of bahia grass in this area. 

The top of the high hill in the northwest corner of Section 2 is 
covered with a very interesting scrub community composed of scattered 
huge old rosemary bushes, some of them 8' tall and 10' across. Most of 
the remainder of the area is bare ground with patches of reindeer moss 
and other lichens and a few saw palmettos. Young rosemaries and turkey 
oaks are numerous. There are a few young longleaf pines. Other 



3-15 



species include lavender paintbrush, goldenaster, wiregrass, greeneyes, 
sun bonnets, honeycomb head, cottonweed, blazing star, and dog fennel. 
Medium- size gopher tortoise burrows are abundant, but few of them look 
active. Ant colonies are evident. 

Deer, pocket gopher, kestrel, kingbird, rufous-sided towhee, 
red-headed woodpecker, Carolina chickadee, gopher tortoise, and gopher 
frog were observed in the eastern core area. There were still scrub 
jays in the scrub just south of this area as late as 1981; current 
status of the population is unknown. 

This eastern tract includes 240 acres of cleared land, 80 acres of 
xeric hammock dominated by sand live oak, 80* acres of slash pine with 
sandhill understory, 40 acres of maidencane prairie, and 20 acres in 
ponds . 

2) The western core is a 3,600-acre tract on the west side of 
Watermelon Pond off CR 337. 

This area has 800 acres of sandhill, mostly in good condition. 
This is generally turkey oak woods with scattered mature longleaf pines 
and lots of young longleaf, most of which appear to have been planted. 
The shrub layer is composed predominantly of shining sumac with a few 
thickets of sand live oak, sparkleberry , and wax myrtle. There is a 
healthy wiregrass groundcover with abundant dog fennel, poison oak, and 
wildf lowers , including sandhill hoary pea, butterfly pea, white 
beard- tongue , honeycomb head, rayless sunflower, scrub prickly pear, 
puckroot, lavender paintbrush, queen's delight, dog tongue, sandhill 
croton, polecat bush, and elephant's foot. There are a few rosemary 
bushes and coontie plants. Gopher tortoises are uncommon, but present. 
Pocket gopher, fence lizard, and kestrel were observed. There was still 
a small population of fox squirrels in this area in 1986. Indigo snakes 
have been recorded nearby. 

On the islands in the prairie grow xeric hammock thickets of sand 
live oak with wax myrtle and sparkleberry. These are important to 
wildlife, offering high water refuges, patches of cover, nesting sites, 
and food sources (acorns) . This habitat covers a total of around 200 
acres . 

Piedmont jointgrass, a rare species, has been recorded from a 
sandy former pond bottom in Section 5. 

The western tract also has 350 acres of cleared land, most of 
which is in pasture, and 120 acres of slash pine plantation which could 
be restored to sandhill. 

Watermelon Pond is valuable wildlife habitat. Many wading birds 
feed on the prairie. Species listed as occurring on this site include 
bobcat, raccoon, opossum, marsh rabbit, great blue heron, kingfisher, 
Louisiana heron, least bittern, wood duck, ring-necked duck, 
blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, mallard, ruddy duck, and 
alligator. 

OWNER: The eastern core is owned by A.C. Boggs . Loncala Phosphate Co. 
owns Section 5. Section 33, and much of sections 32 and 4, are owned 
by Barry's Ranch, Inc. The rest of Section 4 is broken into several 
40-200- acre ownerships. There are a number of small ownerships in 
Section 8. George & Grace Wang own the southwest part of Section 33. 



3-16 



FUTURE PROSPECTS: Pine plantations, improved pastures, and 
house- trailer ranchettes are expanding rapidly in this area. Such 
activities are liable to soon fragment the uplands and prevent 
maintenance of proper fire regimes in the sandhills. Clearing, 
overgrazing, and/or shrub overgrowth will probably destroy the sandhill 
ecosystem piece by piece if it is not preserved in large units 
promptly. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve/restore the two large core areas and join 
them with bands of restored habitat across the intervening more 
fragmented lands. This site would probably be a good candidate for CARL 
acquisition, with subsequent state park, state preserve, or water 
management district management. The managing agency should be committed 
to regular burning of the sandhill habitats . 

Coordinate protection plans and natural system linkages with Levy 
and Gilchrist counties. This site is part of the Waccasassa River 
ecosystem and needs to be managed as such. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and species 
lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI . 1973 NCFRPC 
Open Space and Recreation Study. 1973 NCFRPC Green Plan Inventory. 
11/16/87 field observations by Linda Duever and Jim Newman. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Jeff Cox's 1981 scrub jay report submitted to FGFWFC. Wayne Marion. 
Paul Moler. Bill Frankenberger . Sources cited in 1973 NCFRPC Green Plan 
Inventory: Dr. Mifflin (Geology), Bill Hurst (Civil Engineering), 
Herrick Smith (Landscape Architecture), all UF. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-17 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Hickory Sink 

MAP #: 4 

PRIORITY: High 

KEY FEATURES: Best longleaf pine/red oak example in Florida. Caves and 
sinks with rare fauna. Critical greenbelt linkage. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Upland Pine Forest, Xeric Hammock, Terrestrial Cave, 
Aquatic Cave, Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Needs fire. Incorporates sensitive 
features . 

QUAD: Arredondo 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TICS, R18E, S24 and N 1/2+ of S25; TIOS, R19E, 
W 1/2 of S19, N 1/2 of S30, and NW 1/4 of S29. 

DIRECTIONS: East side of Parker Road three miles north of SR 24. 

SIZE: l,5A0 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Probably the largest intact piece of restorable longleaf 
pine/southern red oak community left in peninsular Florida. 

About 300 acres in the north half of Section 25 is an impressive 
open forest of mature longleaf pine. Although the understory shows 
evidence of some clearing (but not plowing) in the distant past, this 
is still the largest and best forest of its type in the county. 
(Similar tracts in San Felasco Hammock have not been burned often 
enough for proper management of this fire-maintained community.) The 
shrub layer is laurel oak with some wax myrtle, shining sumac, and saw 
palmetto, and a few southern red oaks, mockernut hickories, bluejack 
oaks, and chinquapins. The groundcover is wiregrass with bracken, 
poison oak, sand blackberry, and other grasses and herbs. There are a 
few young longleaf pines. 

The 640 acres in Section 24 has been clearcut and only a few 
patches of trees remain, mostly longleaf pines and mockernut hickories. 
The shrubs and groundcover are similar to those on the unlogged tract, 
but with abundant dog fennel. 

The 670 acres of the site in Sections 19, 30, and 29 have been cut 
over, but still have scattered longleaf pines, bluejack oaks, and 
southern red oaks. The very diverse understory is dominated by laurel 
oak sprouts with dog fennel and shining sumac. Wiregrass, chinquapin, 
bracken, partridge pea, and poison oak are abundant in the groundcover. 
Wildf lowers, including blazing star, pineland foxglove, summer 
farewell, blue pea, butterfly weed, lavender paintbrush, coral bean, 
and asters are plentiful. Coontie also grows in this area. 

About 80 acres in the northeast quarter of Section 25 has been 
allowed to grow up into a young laurel oak hammock with a few live 



oaks, southern red oaks, and longleaf pines. 

The Hickory Sink site has interesting limestone karst features 
throughout and there are several caves and sinks of documented 
importance. One of Florida's largest bat colonies breeds here. This 
cave housed peak populations of up to 75,000 insect-eating southeastern 
myotis bats when it was last studied in 1957. Bob Simons observed many 
bats feeding about a mile to the west in August 1987, so we suspect 
that the colony is still active. The aquatic caves support rare 
invertebrates and this site is the type locality for one subspecies. 

This is also valuable habitat for terrestrial wildlife. The site 
has a gopher tortoise colony and kestrels breed in the vicinity. 
Bachman's sparrows are abundant. Pine snakes and burrowing owls have 
been recorded just to the west. We did not see fox squirrels or 
short-tailed snakes, but this is a likely habitat for them. We did 
observe brown-headed nuth3.-ch, bobvhite, chuck-vill' s-widcw, indigo 
bunting, rufous-sided towhee, yellow-billed cuckoo, great crested 
flycatcher, and red- tailed hawk. Pocket gopher mounds were evident 
along the roadside. If properly managed for old- growth timber, this 
would probably make a suitable reintroduction location for red-cockaded 
woodpeckers . 

OWNER: Frances C. Lee is listed as owner of most of the property, but 
signs on the fences are signed Frances Childress. A 50-acre parcel in 
the center of Section 25 is listed under Miranda Y. Childress. Section 
19 is owned by Fleeman & Kaskel. Most of the north half of Section 30 
is Haile & Haile , as is most of the northwest quarter of Section 29. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: The landowners' intentions are unknown, but this is 
an active development area. 

If the pine forest is not burned within the next few years the 
oaks will grow into a thicket, choking out many of the pineland plant 
species and limiting the possibilities for restoration. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

Hickory Sink could serve as the keystone for a western greenbelt 
for Gainesville. The site lies within both the greenbelt under 
consideration by the Conservation and Recreation Areas Task Force and a 
potential wildlife corridor identified by university biologists. 

If a preserve is planned, serious consideration should be given to 
expanding the boundaries to take in additional restorable pineland 
and/or karst features. Detailed field surveys will be required to fully 
define the areas that should be incorporated. 

This site has enough unusual biological features to be of interest 
to The Nature Conservancy. TNC personnel are already aware of the area 
and eager to help preserve it. We recommend that the county actively 
cooperate with TNC in developing a preservation strategy for this site 
through some combination of acquisition and/or landowner agreement. 

Since Hickory Sink incorporates sensitive ecological features it 
should be managed as a nature preserve. Certain areas should be open 
only to responsible scientists and guided groups. Less sensitive parts 
of the site could accommodate hiking and horseback trails linked to 
other greenbelt recreational areas. 



3-19 



INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field suirvey notes Bob Simons 
submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI . Steve Humphrey. Dick Franz. 
Dale Rice's 1957 Journal of Mammalogy paper on bat caves. 11/2/87 
field observation by Linda Duever, Reed Noss, and Jim Newman. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps and preliminary species lists 
prepared by KBN 11/87 and submitted to Alachua County Department of 
Planning and Development. J. A. Bauer. Florida Speleological Society. 
Steve Nesbitt. FNAI references A40HOB01, B42HOB01, B77HOB01, PNDSMI03 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-20 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Sugar foot; Hammock 

MAP #: 28 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Magnificent ancient mesic hammock. Only location for 
endangered insect. Very scenic. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Basin Marsh, Floodplain Swamp, 
Floodplain Forest, Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake, Marsh Lake; stream with 
characteristics of several watercourse types 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. 

QUAD: Gainesville Vest 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TIGS, R19E, portions of SIO and S15, SE 1/3 of 
S9, and E 1/2 of S16. 

DIRECTIONS: Take SW 20th Avenue to 1-75 underpass. Most important areas 
are south of 20th just west of interstate and north of 20th just to the 
east. 

SIZE: 200 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Sugarfoot Hammock was once second only to San Felasco as 
Florida's most outstanding example of mesic hammock. Now it has been 
split in two by 1-75 and seriously fragmented by agricultural and 
residential development, but it still has viable remnants of 
outstanding forest. The value of the hammock is enhanced by its very 
scenic association with Lake Kanapaha and Hogtown Prairie, Hogtown 
Creek, and Haile Sink. 

The extremely diverse old- growth hammock grows on a fertile sandy 
soil with pockets of clay and many limestone outcrops. This habitat 
alone supports nearly 40 tree species. The dense 100' canopy is 
dominated by sweetgum and sugarberry with some pignut hickory and a 60' 
subcanopy of redbay. Most of the canopy trees are 1-2' dbh, but 
exceptionally large trees of a variety of species are scattered 
throughout, including huge specimens of black cherry, persimmon, bluff 
oak, soapberry, boxelder, red mulberry, redbay, live oak, laurel oak, 
and swamp chestnut oak. Some of these trees are 5-6' dbh. Boxelder 
dominates the relatively open midstory. Winged elm and hophornbeam are 
also prominent in this layer. The shrub and groundcover layers are 
dense and extraordinarily diverse. Stiff -cornel dogwood is one of the 
most common shrubs. The very rare Godfey's privet is also numerous in 
some areas. Major groundcover plants include greenbriars, valerian, 
woodsgrass, carex, waiter's violet, and poison ivy. Vines are abundant, 
including huge grape vines and many large specimens of buckthorn and 
virgin's bower. There are a number of. uncommon herbs, ferns, and 
epiphytes . 



Hogtown Prairie is an especially valuable wetland because of its 
exceptional stand of water elm. From a distance, these generally 
uncommon trees look like small spreading live oaks. Dotted about the 
wetter portions of the prairie they make a picturesque savanna of the 
marshy landscape. 

The western part of the site (Split Rock) is named after a 
significant geological feature. About 160 acres of this is old growth 
hammock surrounding 40 acres of second growth on an abandoned pine 
plantation. This is a particularly park-like part of the forest with 
many 3-5' dbh live oaks, sinkholes, and rock outcrops. Dwarf thorn, 
Carolina holly, Godfrey's privet, wild plum, flatwoods plum, and 
buckthorn are prominent where there are patches of shrubs . 

There was once an outstanding sandhill just northwest of Split 
Rock. We did not field survey this habitat because the fire regime 
necessary to maintain it would be impractical in such an urbanizing 
location. 

Sugarfoot Hammock supports an insect which is a candidate for 
federal endangered species listing and is strictly endemic to Alachua 
County. The sugarfoot fly ( Nemopalpus nearticus ) has never been found 
anywhere but in this hammock. This is a very distinct species, the only 
member of its subfamily in North America. The Split Rock forest block 
southwest of the interstate underpass and northeast of Hogtown Prairie 
is the area most critical to the survival of this species. The area 
north of SW 20th Avenue and east of SW 62nd Boulevard is also 
important. 

Animal species observed here include cottontail rabbit, grey 
squirrel, barred owl, red-shouldered hawk, kestrel, yellow-billed 
cuckoo, red-eyed vireb, white-eyed vireo , Carolina wren, and Carolina 
anole. We saw a flock of wading birds including maybe 50 white ibis, a 
great egret, a little blue heron, a green heron, and about 20 
endangered wood storks feeding near Haile Sink when we visited the site 
11/5/87. The Dickinsons say there is a periodic egret and heron rookery 
in the Split Rock area. Deer, bobcat, otter, and wild turkey have also 
been reported. This site has been well known to university biologists 
for many years, so many more wildlife observations have surely been 
documented. 

OWNER: Prairie View (Henderson) Trust owns the southeast third of 
Section 9, most of the northwest two-thirds of Section 10, and the bulk 
of the site east of 1-75. Mabel Barnes owns a strip along the south 
edge of Section 10 and the center part of Section 15. The Dickinson 
family owns the east central part of Section 16. Alachua County owns 
the northeast part of Section 16 and the northwest part of Section 15. 
The City of Gainesville owns most of the southern third of Section 16. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: 

The Prairie View Trust land is likely to be developed into a 
moderate- to high-density residential complex if not purchased for 
preservation. 

The Dickinsons intend to keep most of their land natural. 

Mabel Barnes' plans are unknown. 

Ligustrum lucidum . a non-native shrub, is invading the hammock and 
may change its character if it is not removed. Chinaberry is also 
present, but does not appear to be a threat to the native flora. 



3-22 



The pine snakes and short- tailed snakes recorded from this 
vicinity will probably die out as the nearby sandhill is eliminated. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

The county park should be expanded to take in the Prairie View 
Trust and Barnes lands west of the interstate. This scenic area could 
accommodate a carefully designed network of hiking and jogging trails. 
These could link across the edge of the Dickinson property with a trail 
system continuing past the city sewage plant and on to Kanapaha 
Botanical Gardens and points south. 

As a secondary priority, the remaining hammock east of 1-75 should 
be preserved. It could also be used as a greenspace for jogging trails. 

Insect spraying should be minimized in this vicinity and 
prohibited entirely around the areas inhabited by the sugarfoot fly. 

The Dickinsons are said to have some sort of conservation 
agreement preserving their land. This should be checked to be certain 
the tract has adequate permanent legal protection. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. Site Survey Summary from 8/17-19/83 field survey Bob 
Simons and David Hall conducted for FNAI. Site Recommendation and old 
aerial photos submitted by Joshua Dickinson III. 1973 NCFRPC Open Space 
and Recreation Study. Bob Simons' 1985 "Sugarfoot Hammock Preservation 
Proposal" submitted by Conservation Planning Coalition. NCFRPC Green 
Plan Inventory. 11/5/87 field observations by Linda Duever and Reed 
Noss. ^ 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
"The Sugarfoot Area: A preliminary evaluation of the area against the 
criteria for designation as an 'Area of Critical State Concern'" 
prepared by NCFRPC for Alachua County Commission in 1981. Sources 
listed on FNAI documents: B82FRA01, FNDYOUOl, PNDHALOl. David G. Young. 
Dan Ward. Walter Judd. Records from Archie Carr's field trips and 
herpetological collections. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



o_o T 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 
SITZ NAME: Chacala Pond 
vvp =: 54 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Critical part of Paynes Prairie ecosystem. Good mesic 
ax^d hydric hanunock. Important lake system. Key link to Lochloosa 
Forest. 

COM>rJNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Xeric Hammock, Basin Marsh, Dry 
Prairie, Flatwoods/Prairie Lake, Mesic Flatwoods, Sinkhole Lake, Hydric 
Karnxcck 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes, if buffer functions could be 
isaintained. 

QUAD : Mi canopy 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS, R20E, Moses E. Levy Grant: S 1/2 of Lot 
4, NE 1/4 of Lot 9, N 1/2 of Lot 10 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR 234 northeast from Micanopy. Go two miles. Site is 
to west and northwest. With gate keys, can be reached via Paynes 
Prairie State Preserve access roads. 

SIZE: 1,080 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Chacala Pond links the wetland/aquatic system 
incorporating Georges Pond, Lake Wauberg, and Sawgrass Pond with Paynes 
Prairie. It is a very important segment of the migration route that 
fish, alligators, turtles, otters, and other wetland animals use to 
move to and from the prairie as water levels change. The site's uplands 
include nice hammocks and flatwoods which are important as a buffer for 
the Paynes Prairie and as an upland habitat link along the preserve's 
southeast border and between there and the forests connected with the 
proposed Lochloosa State Forest, 

The site includes about 500 acres of mesic hammock dominated 
by large live oaks and water oaks. Other common trees are laurel oak, 
pignut hickory, sweetgum, ironwood, American holly, and cabbage palm. 
Swamp chestnut oak, magnolia, winged elm, black cherry, basswood, and 
white ash also grow here. The understory is very variable in density. 
Sparkleberry , small-flowered pawpaw, and, in places, fetterbush are 
prominent in the shrub layer. Greenbriar, Virginia creeper, poison ivy, 
and cross vine are the most common vines. The groundcover is sparse, 
but there are patches of partridgeberry and elephant's foot in the leaf 
litter. 

The mesic hammock grades into a subtropical hydric hammock with 
many palms and epiphytes along the lakeshore. 

Eagles and wading birds feed in Chacala Pond. Gopher tortoises 
have been observed crossing SR 234 near this site. 



'\-')L 



There is a major archaeological site at Chacala Pond. 
OWNER: Murphy owns most of the site. D. & L. DeConna own about 70 acres 
of it in the Stafford Pond area. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: This land has been under consideration for state 
purchase as an addition to Paynes Prairie State Preseirve for a number 
of years. Cook, the former owner, and now Murphy's unwillingness to 
sell has been the primary problem in state acquisition. DeConna is 
willing to sell, but reportedly unwilling to compromise on price. The 
land is so important to the integrity of Paynes Prairie that the state 
will probably find a way to acquire it at some time. In the meantime, 
DeConna' s land is likely to remain more or less natural unless sold and 
Murphy's will probably continue in use as a working ranch. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

Interim options to prevent the degradation of this site should be 
explored. The most important considerations are those relevant to 
management of the state preserve rather than those associated with 
preservation of the on-site habitats other than Chacala Pond. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Field survey notes Bob Simons submitted to 
KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI . 1986 CARL Committee annual report. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps and preliminary species lists 
prepared by KBN 11/87 and submitted to Alachua County Department of 
Planning and Development. CARL proposals and files. Jack Gillen. Don 
Younker . 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-25 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Mill Creek 

MAP #: 7 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Ravines with southernmost slope forests. County's 
best canebrake. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Slope Forest, Wet Flatwoods , Mesic Hammock, Baygall, 
Floodplain Forest, Sinkhole Lake, Seepage Stream 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes, fields between ravines could be used 
for active recreation or cluster development if trampling could be 
prevented in ravines . 

QUAD: Alachua, Worthington Springs 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: Parts of T7S, R18E, S21, S22 , S28, S27, S26, 
S34, S35, S36; T8S, R18E, SI, S2. 

DIRECTIONS: Take 1-75 to SR 236 north of Alachua. Go east about a 
quarter mile, then turn right onto SR 235A. Go a little over a mile, 
then take dirt road forking to left. This is Alligator Road. Use map 
and follow it or connecting dirt roads to appropriate point and walk 
into forest on compass bearing. 

SIZE: 2,500 acres 

DESCRIPTION: This site is composed of the ravines of the Alachua stream 
system, which support Florida's southernmost slope forest communities. 
These are forests reminiscent of those in the southern Appalachians. 
Beech reaches its southernmost limit here and other "northern" species 
like sugar maple and basswood contribute to the atmosphere. 
There are several major blocks of forest in this area: 

1) Upper Mill Creek 

This tract is in the north half of Section 26. Half of it is 
mature forest with medium- sized trees. The rest was clearcut about 
three years ago, but is restorable. 

The canopy is dominated by water oak and pignut hickory. Beech, 
magnolia, and spruce pine are very prominent, especially close to the 
creek. Sweetgura is abundant. Hophornbeara is the most common subcanopy 
species. Other trees include ironwood, live oak, laurel oak, swamp 
chestnut oak, basswood, American holly, flowering dogwood, persimmon, 
sweetbay, and sweetleaf. There are patches of saw palmetto in the 
understory and a few needle palms around seeps. Netted chain fern, 
partridgeberry , and poison ivy are major components of the 
groundcover. This is the county's best remaining stand of beech trees. 



3-26 



2) Middle Mill Creek 

Continuing from Section 26 through 27, 34, and 35, this is a very 
diverse climax hardwood forest with both slope forest and floodplain 
forest components. 

The forest extends from the ravine slopes onto a fertile alluvial 
basin containing the best canebrake community in Alachua County. On 
this site the native bamboo grows 25' tall with stems 1" in diameter. 

The forest continues to be dominated by water oak and pignut 
hickory with a hophornbeam subcanopy. Live oak, laurel oak, basswood, 
sweetgum, magnolia, and ironwood are common. Other trees include sugar 
maple, boxelder, winged elm, white ash, loblolly pine, swamp chestnut 
oak, American holly, flowering dogwood, persimmon, and sweetleaf . There 
are a few large beech trees. The understory in dominated in different 
areas by dwarf thorn, river cane, spikegrass, and blue palmetto. The 
partridgeberry and poison i\"/ eroundcover also includes Walter's 
violet, jack- in- the-pulpic, green dragon, ebony spleenwort, southern 
lady fern, netted chain fern, bearfoot sunflower, lopseed, and, on the 
floodplain, neverwet. 

3) Townsend Branch 

This tract incorporates Alachua County's finest example of the 
beech-magnolia community considered the classic climax forest of the 
southeastern United States. It includes 200 acres classified as slope 
forest and 300 acres of mesic hammock. This is a mature, but not 
virgin, forest of 1-2' dbh trees. Near the creek, it has a tall canopy 
and an open park- like understory. The most abundant trees are water 
oak, laurel oak, magnolia, and pignut hickory. Beech, spruce pine, 
swamp chestnut oak, live oak, blackgum, red maple, sweetgum, 
hophornbeam, ironwood, and sweetleaf are also common, and there is some 
loblolly pine, slash pine, sweetbay, basswood, sugar maple, red 
mulberry, American holly, flowering dogwood, and devil's walkings tick. 
Coimnon species in the diverse shrub flora include southern arrowwood, 
sparkleberry , small-flowered pawpaw, Virginia willow, strawberry bush, 
saw palmetto, and blue palmetto. Cross vine, Carolina jessamine, poison 
ivy, and muscadine are the most common vines. There is some climbing 
hydrangea. Partridgeberry and southern lady fern are abundant in the 
groundcover, which includes southern dewberry, elephant's foot, carex, 
Walter's violet, j ack- in- the-pulpit , blue curls, cranefly orchid, 
ebony spleenwort, sword fern, netted chain fern, cinnamon fern, royal 
fern, Christmas fern (near the southern limit of its range) , and Indian 
pipes. 

The east half of the southwest quarter of Section 15 and the 
northeast corner of Section 22 is high quality pond pine flatwoods with 
intermittent ponds. This area has medium-size pond pines mixed with a 
few slash pines over a dense shrub thicket dominated by saw palmetto, 
gallberry, and shiny lyonia. Other shrubs include wicky, large 
gallberry, staggerbush, scrub blueberry, and wax myrtle. The shrubs are 
tangled with Carolina jessamine and greenbriar. The groundcover 
includes bracken and vanilla leaf. 

4) Rock Creek 

This is an open forest of very large old trees, but it has been 
significantly impacted by grazing. 



3-27 



On the uplands, water oak, pignut hickory, and sugar maple 
dominate the canopy. Hophornbeam, ironwood, sugarberry, basswood, and 
swamp chestnut oak are also common. Other tree species include white 
ash, red maple, laurel oak, live oak, red buckeye, boxelder, red 
mulberry, and red cedar. Beautyberry is the most common shrub. There is 
also some strawberry bush, but little other woody understory. The 
ground is bare in some areas and covered with poison ivy in others. 
Other groundcover species include woodsgrass. river cane, 
jack-in- the-pulpit , green dragon, elephant's foot, ironweed, 
thelypteris, and Christmas fern. 

On the alluvial soil of the floodplain, sugarberry, sweetgum, red 
maple, Florida elm, and oaks dominate. Beneath the canopy are widely 
scattered boxelders and ironwoods and abundant young sugarberries . A 
few red buckeyes and green haws constitute the shrub layer. The ground 
is bare except for patches of spikegrass. 

Wildlife observed on this site included wild turkey, Carolina 
wren, yellow-shafted flicker, pileated woodpecker. 

OWNER: Multiple. Illegible on ownership map. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Could be logged and/or converted to pasture at any 
time. Otherwise likely to stay natural for a number of years. Will 
become vulnerable to residential development as Alachua grows. 

Left alone, or with minor management to accelerate the process, 
the cutover and/or grazed tracts will grow back into good quality 
hardwood forest. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve/restore the slopes and floodplains and the 
pond pine flatwoods. Ideally, a park should be created to encompass the 
ravines and the intervening uplands. 

The ravines should be linked together by strips of similar 
restored habitat and connected to the extent possible with other 
comparable habitats in the region. 

Since slopes are susceptible to erosion, trails through the 
ravines should be planned and managed carefully. 

There is some chinaberry in Rock Creek. This exotic species should 
be removed. It is not a serious ecological threat, but it does alter 
the native character of the forest. 

The pond pine flatwoods need to be burned every few years or they 
will grow up into a bay forest with reduced species diversity. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and species 
lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI , including 
Bob Simons' 11/3/83 field survey of Townsend Branch. Notes from John 
Hendrix, Bob Simons, and Bob Tighe's 3/85 observations for Alachua 
County Resource Inventory. 11/3/87 field observations by Linda Duever 
and Reed Noss. The Geology of the Western Part of Alachua County . 
Florida Bureau of Geology Report of Investigations No. 85. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. Dan 
Ward. 



3-28 



DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KEN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-29 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Hatchet Creek 

MAP #: 35 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: High habitat and species diversity. County's best 
baygalls. Interesting herpetofauna. Critical ecological link between 
Buck Bay, Austin Cary Forest, and Gum Root Swamp. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods , Sandhill, Blackwater Stream, 
Floodplain Swamp, Baygall, Hydric Hammock, Mesic Hammock 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Too narrow generally. Wide spots need 
fire. 

QUAD: Gainesville East, Orange Heights 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T9S, R20E, portions of S15, S14, SIC, Sll, S2, 
SI, S6, S7; T9S, R21E, S5, S8, S9, SIC 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR 24 northeast towards Waldo. Site begins across 
highway from airport. Go about two miles further. Center of site goes 
under road here. 

SIZE: 1,600 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Hatchet Creek is a blackwater stream that meanders through 
a narrow corridor of floodplain forest in a broad arc from its 
headwaters just west of the Gainesville Regional Airport around to the 
north, then drains southward through Gum Root Swamp into Newnan's Lake. 
The surrounding uplands still have nice tracts of sandhills and 
flatwoods, and where seepage from these communities drains onto the 
floodplain, there are interesting baygall communities. 

The type of sandhill/seepage community landscape here is 
widespread in the western Panhandle and occurs in a few places between 
Gainesville and Jacksonville, but is not found elsewhere in Alachua 
County. Titi, alder, and other bog plants found here are uncommon this 
far south. Thorough field surveys of this area are likely to reveal a 
number of populations of species rare or unknown in the county. 

OWNER: Concora Corp. is the largest landowner. There are substantial 
tracts owned by the state of Florida and multiple smaller ownerships. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Rapidly being fragmented by a variety of land 
development activities. Soon likely to be broken into tracts too small 
for proper fire management. 

Pollution or alterations to shallow groundwater hydrology may 
damage baygalls dependent upon low-nutrient seepage. 



3-30 



RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve floodplain and associated natural uplands 
from Buck Bay to Gum Root Swamp. For this area to function effectively 
as an ecological linkage, there needs to be a band of natural habitat 
across the Buck Bay wetlands joining it with the San Felasco Hammock 
area. It will also be important to maintain as wide as possible an 
overpass where the site crosses SR 24. 

Management should assure that the sandhills and flatwoods are 
burned every few years . 

There may be places in this system that were once herbaceous 
seepage bogs with pitcher plants and associated species. If this proves 
to be the case, these communities should be restored and maintained 
with proper burning. 

Extensive areas of pavement, channelization of surface flows, and 
other activities that might interfere with seepage to the baygalls 
should be avoided on the adjacent uplands. Septic tanks and other 
sources of pollution and excess nutrients should be restricted on sites 
upslope of these communities. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and species 
lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN , kept in KBN files. FNAI , Site 
Recommendation submitted by Thomas O'Shea. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
UF/FSM herpetological collection data. Dale Crider. 

DATE: November 20, 198,7 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-31 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Parchman Pond Scrub 

MAP #: 2 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: High quality sandhill/scrub transition community. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Sandhill, Scrub. 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. Requires fire. 

QUAD: Archer, Bronson NE 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS , R18E, S30 

DIRECTIONS: Go one mile southwest of Archer on SR 24. Site is on right 
just south of landfill. 

SIZE: 640 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Stunted turkey oak forest on deep white sand. Widely 
scattered stunted longleaf pines. Abundant rosemary and some saw 
palmetto in patchy shrub layer. Thin wiregrass groundcover in places. 
Lots of reindeer moss and gopher apple. Wildf lowers include sandhill 
croton, dog tongue, roserush, summer farewell, queen's delight, scrub 
dayf lower, pawpaw, lavender paintbrush, lady lupine, and scrub prickly 
pear . 

There are a few gopher tortoises here. Other wildlife observed 
includes pocket gopher ,. rufous -sided towhee, chuck-will's widow, 
six- lined racerunner, harvester ant, and push-up beetle. Indigo snakes 
have been recorded just to the west and burrowing owls have been 
reported from this vicinity. 

OWNER: Osteen Brothers, Inc. own most of it. In the south- central 
part of the section is an 80-acre tract owned by a trust (illegible on 
ownership map) . 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Permitted for sand mine. If preserved and burned once 
or twice every century, this would be Alachua County's finest scrub. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Scrub is disappearing rapidly and should be preserved 
whenever feasible. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and species 
lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI . Helen Hood. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 



3-32 



SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-33 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Hornsby Springs 

MAP #: 12 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Outstanding mesic hammock and floodplain forest. Large 
spring and spring run with rare aquatic species. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Floodplain Forest, Floodplain Swamp, 
Spring- run Stream, Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake, River Floodplain Lake, 
Blackwater Stream, Scrub, Xeric Hammock 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes, but proportion of developed area should 
not be significantly increased. 

QUAD: High Springs 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T7S, R17E, parts of S22, S23, S20, S26, and 
S27. 

DIRECTIONS: Go NW from High Springs on SR 25. Just before the Santa Fe 
River bridge, turn right and follow the signs into Camp Kulaqua. 

SIZE: 250 acres ' 

DESCRIPTION: Hornsby Springs' most important features are the spring 
and spring run flowing into the Santa Fe River and the adjoining 
magnificent mesic hammock. The site includes a small patch of very 
unusual isolated scrub and a pretty floodplain swamp with some 
extraordinarily large remnant cypress. 

About forty acres around the spring has been mostly cleared and 
developed into an elaborate church camp with impressive modern 
buildings, stables, airstrip, etc. 

The mesic hammock incorporates about 180 acres of mature forest 
plus 60 acres of second- growth on land formerly planted to pines. The 
very diverse mature forest has a dense primary canopy of live oaks and 
laurel oaks about 100 feet high with a well-developed subcanopy of 
hophornbeam. Young redbays dominate the distinct broadleaf evergreen 
shrub layer and poison ivy is the most common groundcover plant. Large 
old grape vines loop through the trees. Other woody species include 
bluff oak, swamp chestnut oak, sugar maple, white ash, winged elm, 
American holly, fringetree, basswood, flowering dogwood, redbud, spruce 
pine, strawberry bush, and sweetleaf. Magnolia, pignut hickory, and 
sweetgum are especially abundant. The herbs include green dragon and 
partridgeberry . 

The floodplain forest is a dense and diverse mature forest 
dominated by large live oaks in some areas and laurel oak, sweetgum, 
and Florida elm in others. It covers about 40 acres. There is a good 
deal of ironwood in the subcanopy. Highbush blueberry, saw palmetto, 
blue palmetto, Sebastian bush, and indigo bush are the most 



abundant shrubs. Spikegrass, poison ivy, and water willow dominate the 
patchy groundcover. 

The Hornsby Springs scrub is an oddity. This isolated 15-acre 
patch of sandy xeric habitat has developed a yery unusual species 
composition in the absence of nearby seed sources for scrub plants. It 
has a 10-20' canopy of dwarfed trees 2-4" dbh. Sand live oak and 
fetterbush, which are the most common shrubs in Alachua County scrubs, 
dominate, but the dwarfed trees include pignut hickory, sourgum, laurel 
oak, sweetleaf , American holly, and magnolia, which are all normally 
hammock trees. Saw palmetto, sparkleberry , and deerberry are common 
shrubs. The sparse groundcover includes reindeer moss and bracken. 

Hornsby Spring has been developed as a swimming area for Camp 
Kulaqua. The clear elliptical pool, which is about 125' wide and 185' 
long, is partially enclosed by a 2-3' tall concrete and rock retaining 
wall around the north and east sides. A U-shaped floating dock extends 
into the center. There are lawns to the east, but cypress and other 
natural swamp vegetation borders the west side. There is some water 
hyacinth. The pool vegetation shows the wear and tear of swimming 
activity, but there are still plants, fish, and turtles there. Ihe 
spring connects underground with several nearby sinks and the 
invertebrate fauna of this subterranean aquatic system includes at 
least one rare species. 

A boardwalk leads from the spring area back into the floodplain 
swamp, where there is an enormous cypress tree. A sign beside it 
explains that it is thousands of years old, but several hundred would 
be a better estimate. Nearby stumps suggest that this topless tree is 
hollow and was therefore was passed over in logging many years ago. 
There are red maples and blackgums in the subcanopy and patches of 
swamp lily on the forest floor. The swamp encompasses about 100 acres. 

There are several sinkholes on this site, one of which is a deep 
"blue hole" connected to the aquifer. 

The Hornsby Springs area is particularly interesting in that at 
least eight species (beaver, alligator snapping turtle, redbelly 
watersnake, spotted bullhead, Suwanee bass, river birch, black willow, 
and overcup oak) reach the southeastern limit of their ranges here. 
The Suwanee cooter, a regional endemic turtle, has also been observed 
on this site. 

Our wildlife observations included deer, grey squirrel, wild 
turkey, yellow-bellied sapsucker, pileated woodpecker, red- shouldered 
hawk, barred owl, and broad-headed skink. 

OWNER: The Seventh Day Adventist church owns Camp Kulaqua. Jim and Liz 
Wing own the tract to the north adjoining Oleno State Park. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Camp Kulaqua appears to be a permanently established 
retreat and recreation site. The facilities incorporate a nature center 
and trail, so the camp managers obviously have concern for the site's 
natural values. However, we observed a dump with a number of large tree 
trunk segments as well as current construction of what looks like a 
cluster of cabins, indicating that there is some ongoing degradation of 
the forest. 

Jim and Liz Wing are conservation-minded landowners expected to be 
respectful of their land. 



3-35 



RECOMMENDATIONS: We suggest that the county work through The Nature 
Conservancy's Landowner Contact Program to secure natural area 
registration and protection agreements for this area. 

This site overlaps Site #32, Santa Fe River, so preservation 
plans for these areas need to be coordinated. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. NCFRPC Green Plan Inventory. 11/3/87 field observations by 
Linda Duever and Reed Noss. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Dick Franz. J. A. Bauer. Sources mentioned in Franz and Bauer's 1983 
report to FNAI: William Kulet 1968, Warren 1960, I.S. Exley, D. 
Desautels. Sources mentioned in Green Plan: E.G. Cann of High Springs, 
Jack Quick and Norman Middag of Camp Kulaqua. Sources mentioned in FNAI 
files: B77HOB01, B82FRA01, S54AUFSM, U73LEE01. Springs of Florid a. 
Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 31. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-36 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Kanapaha Prairie 

MAP #: 1 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: High quality sandhills. Important wildlife habitat. 
Valuable greenbelt link. Outstanding scenery. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Sandhill, Wet Prairie, Basin Marsh, 
Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake, Upland Pine Forest 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes. 

QUAD : Arredondo 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS, R19E, S7 , S8, S9, S16, and S17 

DIRECTIONS: Take Williston Road southwest two miles past where 
Wacahoota Road forks off to left. Turn right onto 346A. Go almost one 
mile and turn right onto road into Brice property. 

SIZE: 1,890 acres 

DESCRIPTION: The bulk of this site is essentially a very scenic 
pasture. Kanapaha Prairie is a mixture of marshy areas with native 
vegetation and improved pasture. The prairie is rimmed with park- like 
stands of huge live oaks. In most places the understory has been 
cleared and maintained in grass by grazing, but there are a few areas 
of mesic hammock. These are largely second-growth with older oaks and 
an understory impacted by grazing. 

This site's value as upland habitat lies primarily in the 
associated sandhill communities. These are turkey oak - dominated with 
only a very few longleaf pines, but the oaks are widely scattered and 
the groundcover is diverse and in reasonably good condition. There are 
some bluejack and sand post oaks mixed with the turkey oaks and some 
summer hawthorn in the very sparse shrub layer. The groundcover is 
mostly wiregrass with poison oak, dog fennel, and a variety of 
wildf lowers. Fox squirrels, Bachman's sparrows, and gopher tortoises 
are abundant here. Pine snakes and indigo snakes have also been seen in 
the area. At least three pairs of kestrels nest in this habitat. 

Although the prairie rim vegetation has been seriously altered by 
grazing, this is still valuable wildlife habitat supporting good 
populations of bluebirds, wild turkeys, barred owls, barn owls, both 
red and gray foxes, and fox squirrels, as well as many other animals. 
There is an eagle nest at the northeast corner of the prairie. 

Several hundred sandhill cranes winter on the prairie and 5-10 
pair nest here. Many wading birds, sometimes including large flocks of 
endangered wood storks, use this as feeding habitat. 



3-37 



OWNER: Carl L. Brice owns most of the area, including Sections 8, 9, 
16, and 17. T.E. & Hazel Simmons own most of Section 7. Forty acres 
in the southeast corner of Section 7 belong to T.E. Jr. & Linda 
Simmons. Along the northern edge of this section are an 80-acre tract 
listed under K.W. Doke and 40 acres owned by E.D. & M. Hough. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: This area is very rapidly being subdivided into 
homesites and ranchettes. It will soon be so fragmented that the 
regular burning necessary for maintenance of the sandhills will be 
impossible. Many of the wildlife species of particular concern here are 
species which are either dependent upon fire-maintained open sandhill 
or sensitive to human intrusion. If development continues along its 
present course, within a few years the fox squirrels, kestrels, and 
indigo snakes are liable to be gone, followed eventually by the gopher 
tortoises, pine snakes, eagles, Bachman's sparrows, and others. 
The prairie and its rim have been recommended to the CARL 
Committee for state acquisition, but its chances for state funding look 
relatively poor at this point. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Include the sandhills in sections 7 and 9 in any 
preservation proposal. They should be managed so that they can be 
burned every few years. Since sandhill is a community that naturally 
occurs in large windswept expanses, these tracts should be linked with 
as much similar habitat as possible. 

Crossfencing and human disturbance on the prairie should be 
minimized to avoid disrupting wetland functions and crane behavior. 

A band of natural vegetation should be kept around the prairie to 
serve as continuous wildlife habitat. 

Linkages should be maintained between this area and Paynes Prairie 
through the City of Gainesville's Wacahoota property. Similar 
connections should join Kanapaha Prairie with Hickory Sink to the north 
and Barr Hammock to the southeast. These should be established as soon 
as possible, before routing even minimal recreational access and 
ecological connections between these systems becomes impractical. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes Bob Simons 
submitted to KBN, kept in KBN files. FNAI. 1987 CARL proposal submitted 
by CARA. 7/1/87 CARA "Report on the Proposed 1,550 acre Brice Property 
Acquisition". Steve Nesbitt. Robin Hart. 11/12/87 field observations by 
Linda Duever and Jim Newman. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps and preliminary species lists 
prepared by KBN 11/87 and submitted to Alachua County Department of 
Planning and Development. Don Morrow of Trust for Public Land. Paul 
Moler. Petra Wood of UF Wildlife Ecology Dept. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-38 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Gum Root Swamp 

MAP #: 15 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Large complex of wetlands and pinelands. Key regional 
ecosystem linkage. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods , Wet Flatwoods , Scrubby Flatwoods, 
Sandhill, Basin Swamp 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. 

QUAD: Orange Heights 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T9S, R21E, S17, S16, S20, S21, S29, S28; T9S, 
R20E, S19 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR26 northeast towards Melrose to junction with SR222. 
This is near center of site. 

SIZE: 2,580 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Extensive complex of swamp and flatwoods with sandhills on 
rise. Gum Root Swamp proper is central wetlands basin. 

The wetlands have good stands of titi, which is unusual this far 
south. 

The sandhills and scrubby flatwoods in Section 19 have coontie and 
gopher tortoises. There are about 100 acres each of nice sandhill and 
scrubby flatwoods here, as well as maybe another 100 acres of planted 
slash pine that could be restored to a xeric longleaf community. 

There are several eagle and osprey nests in Gum Root Swamp and 
wood storks were recorded nesting here in 1972. Fox squirrels and 
canebrake rattlesnakes have been reported from this vicinity. There 
were red-cockaded woodpeckers in this area until very recently. 

OWNER: Arthur Gladstone owns sections 20 and 21. Jenkins & Durrance 
own Section 29. Owens-Illinois owns 28. Mabel Barnes holds the east' 
half of 19. Charles Piarkoson has 290 acres around the junction of 
sections 16, 21, and 15. Concora Corp. owns most of the rest and much 
of the surrounding land. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS : Likely to remain in pine production and hunt club 
uses indefinitely with some fragmentation by rural homesites. Presently 
natural uplands are liable to be converted to pine plantations. 

The core of Gum Root Swamp is clearly a wetland and protected 
under provisions applicable to such sites. The fringes of the swamp 
may not have this security. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider easements or similar legal agreements to 1) 



3-39 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Gum Root Swamp 

MAP #: 15 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Large complex of wetlands and pinelands. Key regional 
ecosystem linkage. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods , Wet Flatwoods , Scrubby Flatwoods, 
Sandhill, Basin Swamp 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. 

QUAD: Orange Heights 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T9S, R21E, S17, S16, S20, S21, S29, S28; T9S, 
R20E, S19 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR26 northeast towards Melrose to junction with SR222. 
This is near center of site. 

SIZE: 2,580 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Extensive complex of swamp and flatwoods with sandhills on 
rise. Gum Root Swamp proper is central wetlands basin. 

The wetlands have good stands of titi, which is unusual this far 
south. 

The sandhills and scrubby flatwoods in Section 19 have coontie and 
gopher tortoises. There are about 100 acres each of nice sandhill and 
scrubby flatwoods here, as well as maybe another 100 acres of planted 
slash pine that could be restored to a xeric longleaf community. 

There are several eagle and osprey nests in Gum Root Swamp and 
wood storks were recorded nesting here in 1972. Fox squirrels and 
canebrake rattlesnakes have been reported from this vicinity. There 
were red-cockaded woodpeckers in this area until very recently. 

OWNER: Arthur Gladstone owns sections 20 and 21. Jenkins & Durrance 
own Section 29. Owens-Illinois owns 28. Mabel Barnes holds the east 
half of 19. Charles Piarkoson has 290 acres around the junction of 
sections 16, 21, and 15. Concora Corp. owns most of the rest and much 
of the surrounding land. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Likely to remain in pine production and hunt club 
uses indefinitely with some fragmentation by rural homesites. Presently 
natural uplands are liable to be converted to pine plantations. 

The core of Gum Root Swamp is clearly a wetland and protected 
under provisions applicable to such sites. The fringes of the swamp 
may not have this security. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider easements or similar legal agreements to 1) 



3-39 



prevent fragmentation, 2) maximize area with native groundcover, and 3) 
maintain strong ecological linkages with the Hatchet Creek and Newnan's 
Lake systems and the wetland/pineland habitats to the north. The 
wetland and upland links are both important. 

See that the pinelands are burned frequently. The sandhills need 
fire soon. 

Maintain wetland hydrological patterns. 

Prevent disruptive activity around important nesting areas. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 1973 NCFRPC Open Space and Recreation Study. 1973 NCFRPC 
Green Plan Inventory, John Hendrix's notes re site to be investigated 
for Alachua County Resource Inventory. ' 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Dale Crider. Steve Nesbitt. Wayne Marion. Tom Edwards (UF, Wildlife 
Ecology). Sources listed in FNAI files: U81GFC01, S79XXXSM. Sources 
listed in 1973 NCFRPC Green Plan Inventory: Jim Layne , Robert Brantley. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-40 



AIACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Millhopper Flatwoods 

MAP #: 48 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Nice mesic flatwoods. Important greenbelt link. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods, Basin Swamp, Baygall. 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited, since regular fires are necessary. 
QUAD: Gainesville West, Gainesville East 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T9S, R19E, Sll, NE 1/4 of S14, part of SU 1/4 
of S12. - : ■ •--- .-,; v:-- ■ : : : . "r ■ ■ - ; : . 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR20 northeast towards Hague. Go one and a half miles 
past junction with SR121. Site is to the south. -■ 

SIZE: 800 acres 

DESCRIPTION:- Mesic flatwoods mosaic, about half natural pine and half 
planted. Slash pine 8-18" dbh and 60-100' tall dominates. Most of site 
has dense shrub layer with abundant saw palmetto. Some areas are 
strongly invaded by oaks. 

Site includes 200 acres of swamp. 

OWNER: A.D. Weiss owns Section 11 and the southwest quarter of Section 
12. The northeast quarter of 12 is in multiple small ownerships. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Slated for iimninent residential development. Will 
grow into poor quality hammock if left alone without fire. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve as greenbelt element, seeing that ecological 
connections with Buck Bay to east and San Felasco Hammock to west are 
maximized. 

Needs to be burned soon and every few years thereafter. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KEN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987. 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-41 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: South LaCrosse Forest 

MAP #: 24 

PRIORITY: Medium 

KEY FEATURES: Second largest forest block in county. Valuable as 
ecological link between San Felasco Hammock and Santa Fe River. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods , Mesic Hammock, Basin Swamp 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes 

QUAD: Alachua 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T7S, R19E, most of SW 1/4 of S34 & part of SE 
1/4 of S33; T8S, R19E, S3, S4, most of S9, N 1/2 of SIO 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR121 north to LaCrosse. Site is due south between 
SR121 and SR235. 

SIZE: 1,700 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Mostly overgrown second- growth loblolly pine/water oak 
forest of minimal intrinsic ecological value. Areas of nice flatwoods 
and swamp. Greatest value is as regional ecosystem link. 

OWNER: About 20 owners, most of them with tracts of around 40 acres. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Unknown. Outside immediate path of development. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect swamp and quality flatwoods. 

Preserve north- south habitat band and link with Santa Fe River 
through Rocky Creek to northeast and to San Felasco hammock to the 
south. 

Manage to promote succession to hammock in some areas and 
restoration to flatwoods in others. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-42 



ALA.CHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Palm Point Hill 

MAP #: 53 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Excellent habitat diversity. Old hammock. Lakeshore hill 
with scenic views. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Hydric Hammock, Xeric Hammock, Scrub, 
Prairie/Flatwoods Lake, Seepage Stream 

PRESERVATION ALTERIh'ATIVES : No, except for active recreation along 
lakeshore . 

QUAD: Orange Heights 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TIGS, R21E, E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of S7 and part of W 
1/4 of NW 1/4 of S8 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR26 east from Gainesville to fork where it turns 
northeast. Take right fork and go straight ahead to Newnan's Lake. Turn 
right and go three quarters of a mile to the site. 

SIZE: 100 acres y 

DESCRIPTION: Hill on west side of Newnan's Lake. Site includes 
lakeshore. 

There is a 50-acre tract of mature mesic hammock on this site. 
This is a diverse climax forest with trees 1-2' dbh and 60- 100' tall. 
Pignut hickory is the dominant tree. Laurel oak and magnolia are also 
common. Prominent components of the shrub layer include dwarf thorn, 
coral bean, and flatwoods plum. Hogplum is abundant at its northern 
inland limit here. 

The 10 -acre hydric hammock is composed of large live oaks and 
mixed hardwoods with a patchy understory dominated in some places by 
river cane and by blue palmetto or shrubs in others. Water hickory, 
which grows nowhere else in Alachua County except on the Santa Fe 
floodplain, occurs here. 

The site includes 20 acres which was once farmed and has now grown 
up in 90' loblolly pines with an understory of young hardwoods and a 
variety of groundcover species. 

The 10 -acre scrub on the hilltop is a dwarf forest of fetterbush 
and sand live oak with a dense saw palmetto understory and abundant 
huckleberry. It has a sparse groundcover of deermoss and bracken. There 
are a few gopher tortoises here. 

The 10-acre xeric hammock is an ecotonal community between the 
scrub and the mesic hammock. 

OWNER: Franklin Crates, Inc. Sixteen acres on the lakeshore tip of 
Palm Point is under separate ownership, A. P. on map. 



r\ / -^ 



FUTURE PROSPECTS: Owners intentions unknown. Looks like prime 
residential land. 

RECO^-IMENDATIONS: Preserve and make available for nature study. This 
would make an excellent location for a nature center with short 
interpretive trails explaining the different habitats. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Joan Diemer, 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOUP-CE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-A4 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Fred Bear Hanunock 

MAP #: 42 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Diverse mesic hammock. Karst topography. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake, Seepage Stream 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes 

qua:;: Arredondo 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TIGS, R19E, S3 

DIRECTIONS: Take Williston Road southwest past 1-75. Turn right onto 
Fred Bear Road. Site is on left. 

SIZE: 200 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Very diverse 100-acre mesic hammock. Varied forest 
structure, tree sizes, and species composition. Some exceptionally 
large trees. Sugarberry and sweetgum dominate canopy. Many uncommon 
species, including swamp chestnut oak, basswood, soapberry, buckthorn, 
vigin's bower, dropseed, guinea-hen weed, wild plum, rouge plant, 
spleenwort, and grape fern. 

Complex limestone topography with rock outcrops, sinkholes, 
sinkhole ponds, a shallow ravine, perched ponds, and seepage streams. 
Active sinkhole development. This area is probably valuable for aquifer 
recharge. 

Cluster of ponds with old blackguras. 

There is a lOO-acre stand of loblolly pine -dominated second- 
growth about 30 years old. Laurel oak, sweetgum, and other hardwoods 
are invading this area and it is rapidly returning to hammock. Gopher 
tortoises inhabit the drier and more open parts -of this tract. Pine 
snakes have been recorded just to the southwest. 

OWNER: Mostly R.L. Henderson, Trustee 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Could be developed at any time. Owned by developer, 
zoned industrial, and located in path of development. 

If left alone, entire site will eventually grow back into good 
hammock. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve high quality hammock and karst areas and as 
much buffer as feasible. See that activities on remainder of site do 
not degrade ecological or aesthetic values of preserved portions 
through trampling, runoff, or other impacts. 



■^-AS 



INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20. 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-46 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Rocky Creek 

MAP #: 22 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Restorable slope forest. Long north-south ravine valuable 
as linkage between Santa Fe and systems to the south. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Slope Forest, Seepage Stream 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Too narrow. 

QUAD: Alachua, Monteocha 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T8S, R19E, parts of SI and S2; T7S, R19E, parts 
of S13, S14, S23, S24, S25, S26, S35, & S36. 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR 235 east from LaCrosse. Go almost two miles to 
stream crossing. Site runs north and south along steam corridor. 

SIZE: 1,000 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Narrow stream valley with patches of nice hardwood forest 
remaining on slopes and 100' wide strip of old- growth along creek. Most 
of site has been logged within last fifteen years and is now a dense 
tangle of shrubs and saplings. 

Water oak and wax myrtle dominate the second- growth vegetation, 
but the ravine system still has the seed sources to regrow into a 
fairly diverse hammock. Other abundant trees are loblolly pine, 
sweetgum, sourgum, pignut hickory, and ironwood. Relatively uncommon 
species that still grow here include swamp chestnut oak, spruce pine, 
basswood, red buckeye, pink azalea, southern arrowwood, Walter 
viburnum, blue palmetto, stiff -cornel dogwood, climbing hydrangea, and 
green dragon. 

This system is regarded as an important wildlife corridor. Black 
bears, which require heavy cover, apparently used it to migrate to and 
from San Felasco Hammock before it was logged. 

OWNER: About 20 ownerships, mostly tracts of about 40 acres that 
include uplands as well as segments of the stream valley. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Remaining stands of old-growth could be cleared, 
which would limit potential for restoration. Grazing is liable to 
degrade some areas. 

Outside immediate path of development, so major construction 
activity unlikely in near future, but site is so narrow that even a few 
residences could dangerously fragment the system. 

Left alone, logged areas will grow back into hammock quickly. 
Without management to favor slope forest composition, species like 
spruce pine and swamp chestnut oak may take many centuries to regain 
former abundance. 



RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect and restore stream valley, perhaps through 
conservation easements or similar mechanisms. 

Insure strong ecological connections with the Santa Fe River 
system, Buck Bay, and San Felasco Hammock. Wildlife movements are of 
particular concern here. 

Reintroduce slope forest species to areas where they are lacking. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files . FNAI . Larry Harris . 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-48 



AIACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Buzzard's Roost 

MAP #: 6 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Old hammock on limestone outcrop. Unusual fern flora. 
Karst features. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Seepage Stream, Sinkhole, Floodplain 
Forest 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Too small and sensitive. 

QUAD: Gainesville West 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TIOS , R19E, S ' 1/2 of NW 1/4 of S6. 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR26 west towards Newberry. Site is two miles past 
1-75 on left. 

SIZE: 30 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Very tall dense hardwood forest with many large trees. 
Dominant canopy species are sugarberry, white ash, boxelder, and 
Shumard oak. Poison ivy, carex, and jumpseed, an uncommon species, are 
abundant in the understory. The rocks are covered with ferns, including 
several uncommon species. 

The karst features include an outcrop ridge with a shallow rock 
ravine, a sinkhole, and a small cave. An intermittent stream drains 
into the aquifer through a solution hole here. 

OWNER: Howard W. Ramsey, 10417 Newberry Road, Gainesville, FL 32606 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Owner's intent unknown. Located in active development 
area near planned activity center, 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve and protect from trampling and collecting 
impacts by careful access control. Minimize publicity of fern flora. 

Prevent hydrological alterations and pollution impacts. 

Remove chinaberries and tung trees. These exotic species do not 
seem to be a serious ecological threat, but they do mar the native 
character of the hammock. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. Dan 
Ward. UF herbarium specimens # P526 and P527. 



DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-50 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Santa Fe Creek 

MAP #: 17 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Nice remnants of floodplain forest. Potential ecological 
link between Mill Creek system and Santa Fe River. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Floodplain Forest, Floodplain Swamp, Seepage Stream, 
Mesic Hammock 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Too narrow. 

QUAD: Worthington Springs 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T7S, R19E, parts of S8, S17 , & S4. 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR236 west from community of Santa Fe . Go half a mile 
and turn right onto logging road into site. 

SIZE: 250 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Upper part of creek valley is floodplain forest dominated 
by water oak, blackgum, sweetgum, and loblolly pine. This area has been 
cut over in patches at different times over the last fifteen years. 
There are a few nice stands of old growth, but most of it is a tangle 
of saplings and vines. 

The higher ground in the center of Section 4 is a mesic hammock 
developed from a second-growth mixed forest with the loblolly pines 
largely cut out. It is mostly a dense thicket of shrubs, vines, and 
4-6" dbh young trees. Water oak dominates. There are several 
interesting species here. They include swamp chestnut oak, indigo bush, 
southern arrowwood, fringetree, and pink azalea. 

The Santa Fe River floodplain near the mouth of this creek is 
particularly nice, with some large trees that were too inconvenient to 
log. 

We observed a yellow-billed cuckoo here. Alligator snapping 
turtles have been recorded near where the creek enters the river 
floodplain. 

OWNER: Multiple. Illegible on county map. There are rumored to be 
tracts for sale by Brunswick Pulp and Land (sic?) Co. and Meade Corp. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: New technological and/or economic situations could 
spur logging of remaining large trees. 

Left alone, hammocks will regrow into average quality forests. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect through conservation easements or similar 
mechanism. 



Reintroduce full complement of species from Mill Creek and Santa 
Fe floodplain stock. 

Prevent fire and minimize grazing. 

Maintain strong ecological connections with Mill Creek and Santa 
Fe River systems. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI . Site Recommendation submitted by Bill Frankenberger . 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Dave and Candy Cantlin, P.O. Box 295, LaCrosse, FL 32658 904/462-2226 
or 904/392-1951. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-52 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATJRAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: North San Felasco Hanunock 

MAP #: 46 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEIATURES : Young mesic hanmiock. Valuable connection between San 
Felasco Hammock and ecosystems to the north. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Sinkhole Lake, Seepage Stream 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited 

QUAD: Alachua 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T8S, R19E, SE 1/4 of S37. Interpret location 
carefully. Sections are confusing in this area. 

DIRECTIONS: Take US 441 northwest to Hague. Walk south along Cellon 
Creek. 

SIZE: 300 acres 

DESCRIPTION: This was formerly mesic hammock of the same fine quality 
as that in San Felasco Hammock State Preserve. It has been logged, and 
areas were site-prepped for a pine plantation, but it is recovering 
rapidly. 

The site is now a dense tangle of small hardwoods, vines, and 
brush. Water oak, sweetgura, and pignut hickory are among the more 
common canopy trees and hophornbeam and devil's walkings tick are 
common in the subcanopy. The groundcover is mostly woods grass, poison 
ivy, carex, partridgeberry, and Virginia creeper. 

The site includes two creek systems and several sinkhole ponds. 

Otters, bobcats, and indigo snakes use this area and swallowtail 
kites nest nearby. 

OWNER: Most of this is listed as J.W. Stanley on county map. At least 
part of this area is rvunored to have been recently purchased by a 
conservation-minded landowner. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: If owner is not inclined to preserve, this tract is 
liable to be lost to development pressures. 

Left alone, these woods will grow back into high quality mesic 
hammock. Proximity of diverse seed sources in San Felasco Hammock will 
enable this site to fully recover faster and with less human help than 
most. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect site, either through state purchase and 
addition to San Felasco Hammock or through a mechanism akin to a 
conservation easement that will 1) allow hammock to regrow; 2) maintain 
strong ecological connections with San Felasco Hammock and permit 



3-53 



wildlife movement to and from areas to the north; and 3) prevent 
activities on this site from interfering with management programs on 
the adjacent state preserve. 

Prevent fire. 

Prevent hydrological alterations and pollution impacts. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field sur^/ey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-54 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Shenks Flatwoods 

MAP #: 19 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: County's second-best flatwoods. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. Needs regular burning. 

QUAD: Waldo, Orange Heights 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T8S , R21E, E 2/3 of S36; T8S, R22E, W 1/4 of 
S 31; T9S, R21E, NE 1/4 of SI. 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR26 east from Gainesville to SR200. Turn left and go 
two and a half miles north towards Shenks. Site is on the left. 

SIZE: 700 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Good quality longleaf pine flatwoods with most pines about 
1' dbh and 80' tall. Understory is a mosaic dominated by saw palmetto 
in some areas and by creeping live oak and wiregrass in others. 

About 100 acres in north-central part of tract was burned out in a 
wildfire several years ago and the remaining timber was clearcut. This 
area and the 25 -acre pasture within it could be restored. 

Large populations of wicky, creeping live oak, and runner oak. 

Good deer habitat. We saw a diamondback rattlesnake on this site. 

OWNER: I.E. & Elma Kallman 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Owner's intentions are unknown. Outside current path 
of development, but could be logged or converted to pasture. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve, perhaps as hunting area. 
Burn regularly. Needs fire soon, 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-55 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Serenola Forest 

MAP #: 26 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Nice mesic hammock with sinkholes. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Yes 

QUAD: Micanopy 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TIGS, R19E, part of S2; TIGS, R20E, part of W 
1/4 of S3 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR331 southwest towards Williston. Site is one and a 
half miles past junction with US441, just before intersection with 
SR121 (SW 34th Street). Most of site to the south, but there are 
remnant pieces to the north behind Nationwide Insurance. 

SIZE: 300 acres 

DESCRIPTION: This is a 'well-drained mesic hammock with sinkhole ponds 
that filter water from its small isolated watershed into the aquifer. 
There are scattered shallow sinks and stream beds with widely 
fluctuating water levels. A former national champion Florida elm grows 
in one of these low spots. 

The oldest part of the forest is about lOG acres of medium-size 
hardwoods with a very open understory. Sweetgum, laurel oak, and live 
oak are the dominant trees. Pignut hickory is common. Other trees 
include bluff oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak, loblolly pine, 
sugarberry, ironwood, red mulberry, persimmon, white ash, American 
holly, spruce pine, red cedar, winged elm, basswood, magnolia, redbay, 
black cherry, cabbage palm, flowering dogwood, and redbud. The most 
common shrubs are yaupon, stiff-cornel dogwood, and dwarf thorn. 
Others include sprawling buckthorn, Walter viburnum, wax myrtle, 
strawberry bush, coral bean, fringetree, wild olive, devil's 
walkingstick, wild plum, Carolina holly, parsley haw, blue palmetto, 
buckthorn, shining sumac, beautyberry, Virginia willow. Poison ivy, 
grape, and cross vine are the most common vines. Woodsgrass is the most 
abundant groundcover species. Partridgeberry , bedstraw, carex, 
elephant's foot, and Florida violet are also plentiful. Ebony 
spleenwort, little ebony spleenwort, green dragon, spiderwort, 
thelypteris, dropseed, Adam's needle, yellow passion flower, and 
iresine, also grow in the groundcover, 

There are two successional areas totalling about 15G acres that 
are dominated by loblolly pines. At the south end of the site is a 
30-year-old stand of pine and sweetgum growing on a formerly cleared 
field. At the northeast is an area that was once upland pine forest, 
but is growing into hammock because it has not been burned. 



This site supports a variety of wildlife. There are a few gopher 
tortoises around the edge of the forest. Mississippi Kites are thought 
to nest in this area. 

Scenic Road (Crown Road) goes through site, 

OWNER: Most owned by R.L. Henderson 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Owned by developer, zoned commercial, and located 
along major road through active growth area... 

Pine -dominated areas will eventually grow into nice hammock if 
left alone. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve old part of hammock and as much of rest as is 
feasible . 

Extend preserved tract to Paynes Prairie boundary to help 
compensate for isolation by roads in other directions. 

Consider creating interpretive area accessible from 1-75 rest 
area. (Coastal Plains Institute in Tallahassee has a program for 
developing such environmental education facilities.) 

Prevent fire. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI . Steve Humphrey. Site Recommendation submitted by Arthur 
and Patricia Fabrick, 5520 SW 24th Terrace, Gainesville 904/372-0673. 
Mike Campbell. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-57 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Domino Hammock 

MAP #: 56 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Mature hammock on limestone outcrop with many 
interesting karst features. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Hammock, Sinkhole, Sinkhole Lake, Aquatic Cave, 
Terrestrial Cave 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. 

QUAD: Bronson NE 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS, R18E, S33 & S34 

DIRECTIONS: Take SR24 southwest to Archer. From intersection of SR24 
and US41/US27/SR45 go three miles south on SR241, Turn east onto graded 
road and go one mile. Walk a quarter mile to south. 

SIZE: 130 acres 

DESCRIPTION: A mosaic pf majestic mature hammock and second- growth 
thickets . 

The mature hammock has a 100' canopy dominated by pignut hickories 
1-2' dbh, red bays 1-3' dbh, and live oaks 3-6' dbh. Sweetgum, 
ironwood, and laurel oak are abundant in the subcanopy. Stiff-cornel 
dogwood, Carolina holly, beautyberry, and greenbriar are the most 
common species in the heavily grazed understory. Woodsgrass dominates 
the groundcover along with carex, poison ivy, and partridgeberry. 

Parts of the hammock were not too long ago upland pine forest with 
a longleaf pine/southern red oak/mockernut hickory fire subclimax 
community. These areas have gone without fire and grown up with young 
hardwoods. They are probably past the point where restoration to 
pineland would be practical. 

Interesting plant species here include swamp chestnut oak, winged 
elm, white ash, boxelder, basswood, rusty blackhaw, buckthorn, Carolina 
buckthorn, small-flowered pawpaw, climbing hydrangea, coontie, 
widespread maiden fern, ebony spleenwort, green dragon, indigo bush, 
greenfly orchid, and grey needle-leaf air plant. 

Domino Hammock has about twenty caves of varied characteristics 
and dimensions, as well as a number of sinkholes. 

Wildlife species observed on this site include red-shouldered 
hawk, wood duck, Carolina wren, ruby- throated hummingbird, barred owl, 
red-bellied woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo, summer tanager, 
white-eyed vireo, black racer, bullfrog, and leopard frog. 

OWNER: Mrs. Chase D. Maddox, Archer FL 32618 owns most of the hammock. 
J.E. Buff owns a narrow 10 -acre strip running east-west through the 
west-central part of Section 34. 



3-58 



FUTURE PROSPECTS: Continued degradation by grazing, occasional logging, 
and uncontrolled exploration by cavers. 

Owner's plans are unknown, but value of beautiful wooded homesites 
could create pressure for residential development. 

Japanese climbing fern has invaded the hammock. It could grow into 
a kudzu-like blanket and smother areas of native vegetation. 

This site is liable to suffer more long-term species losses than 
most due to isolation from other natural areas. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : Preserve through mechanism that will enable managers 
to stop grazing and logging and control access to karst areas. 

Eliminate Japanese climbing fern, chinaberries , and armadillos to 
the extent feasible. 

Consider reintroduction of full range of understory species 
typical of habitat. 

Prevent fire . 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: FNAI , including reports from 5/14/83 and 
8/21/83 field surveys by Bob Simons and Buford Pruitt, 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 
Speleological Society. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-59 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Moss Lee Lake Sandhill 

MAP #: 8 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Restorable sandhill with appropriate groundcover and 
wildlife. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Sandhill 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. Already small for sandhill. Needs 
regular fire. 

QUAD: Hawthorne 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: TllS, R22E, E 1/2 of S12. 

DIRECTIONS: Take paved road southeast from Hawthorne. Go two and a half 
miles to site. 

SIZE: 260 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Sandhill planted to slash pine 15-20 years ago. Still has 
scattered longleaf pine's and good wiregrass groundcover. Turkey oak is 
dominant tree. Rosemary is abundant on unburned areas. Gopher apple, 
dog fennel, and tephrosia are common. Other species include sandhill 
milkweed, reindeer moss, queen's delight, garberia, bracken, silkleaf 
goldenaster, puckroot, and polecat bush. 

There are fox squirrels and a few gopher tortoises here, A bear 
was observed one mile south of this site in 1985. 

OWNER: Owens-Illinois, Inc. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: May be developed or graded after slash pines are 
harvested. Grading would destroy the wiregrass understory, which is 
virtually irreplaceable. Understory could be "controlled" for forestry 
purposes . 

On Putnam County line and thus could be affected by adjacent land 
uses beyond Alachua County control. 

Will grow into a scrubby community and eventually into xeric 
hammock if not burned. Fox squirrels will die out as this happens and 
gopher tortoises and wildf lowers will decrease in numbers. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect. 

Remove slash pines. 

Burn soon and every few years thereafter. 

Coordinate planning for this area with Putnam County, ecologically 
linking it with other xeric communities to the extent possible. 



3-60 



INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Eob Siiiions submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-61 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Beech Valley 

MAP #: 36 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Outstanding slope forest in restorable condition, 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Slope Forest, Seepage Stream, Seepage Slope. 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Too narrow. 

QUAD: Worthington Springs 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T7S , R18E, parts of S12 & S13 

DIRECTIONS: Take CR 241 north from Alachua. Go about five and a half 
miles and turn right onto CR 236. Go one and a half miles to creek, 
where road crosses site. 

SIZE: 300 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Twenty years ago this was the best slope forest in 
peninsular Florida. It had an impressive stand of large beech trees 
near the southern limit of their range. 

Landowner has bulldozed most of the understory and cleared areas 
of the forest bit by bit over the years to improve the pasture for 
cattle. There are still a number of large trees left. 

The major species in the sparse canopy are spruce pine, swamp 
chestnut oak, water oak, diamondleaf oak, pignut hickory, and sweetgum. 
The subcanopy is hophornbeam with some flowering dogwood. The 
understory has been reduced to mostly beautyberry, poison ivy, and 
woodsgrass. Christmas fern grew here formerly, but may have been 
extirpated. Unusual species still present include beech, sugar maple, 
red buckeye, blue palmetto, cross vine, Walter's violet, and green 
dragon. 

There are seepage areas along the sides of the valley. 

OWNER: Reportedly Alvin Davis, Jr. and others. Names are illegible on 
county map. Looks like four or five parcels of 60+ acres each. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Continued slow degradation by bulldozer and cows. 

If protected, this would rapidly grow back into a good slope 
forest. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect and reintroduce full complement of slope 
forest species. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 9/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 



3-62 



ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
subir.itted to Alachua County Department cf Planning and Development. Bob 
Simon's Paradise Lost field survey submitted to FNAI 8/29/83. Dan Ward. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-63 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Northeast Lake Altho Flatwoods 

MAP #: 20 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Large tract of nice flatwoods. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Mesic Flatwoods 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: Limited. Needs regular burning. 

QUAD: Waldo 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T8S, R22E, extreme NW corner of S17 & parts of 
S18 &S19. 

DIRECTIONS: From Waldo, go two and a half miles southeast to Shenks . 
Turn left onto CR325. Go two and a half miles north. Site is on the 
left. 

SIZE: 540 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Mixed slash pine and longleaf pine flatwoods. About 240 
acres has trees around 20 years old. Pines have been cut off remaining 
300 acres recently, but understory is still in good condition. 
Understory is dense palmetto and gallberry with scattered dahoon holly 
and blackgum. Other common shrubs include wax myrtle, large gallberry, 
and red chokeberry. Sparse groundcover includes wiregrass, bracken, and 
cinnamon fern. 

OWNER: Half a dozen large ownerships. Names illegible on county map. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Outside path of development. Lakeshore swamp keeps 
this from being in demand for weekend lake houses, but remaining pines 
could be cut and/or land cleared for pasture. 

Will grow up into mediocre hammock if not burned. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect and restore by replanting pines in clearcut. 
Burn soon and regularly thereafter. This site has gone unburned 
for a long time at some point. Mechanical brush control may be 
necessary to cut back shrub overgrowth so that community can again be 
fire -maintained . 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 1973 NCFRPC Green Plan Inventory. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987 



3-64 



SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-65 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: South Melrose Flatwoods 

MAP #: 14 

PRIORITY: Low 

KEY FEATURES: Nice xeric longleaf pine flatwoods. 

COMMUNITY TYPES: Scrubby Flatwoods 

PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: No. Small and requires regular fire. 

QUAD: Melrose 

TOWNSHIP/RANGE/SECTION: T9S, R22E, part of NW 1/4 of S23 

DIRECTIONS: From Melrose, go west one mile on SR26. Turn south onto 
CR219A. Go one half mile. Site is on left. 

SIZE: 60 acres 

DESCRIPTION: Dry scrubby flatwoods with scattered large longleaf pines 
and sand live oaks. Some slash pine. Open understory with a few large 
shrubs and a good wiregrass groundcover. Gallberry and wicky are the 
most abundant shrubs. Other trees and shrubs include laurel oak, 
bluejack oak, turkey oak, wax myrtle, and staggerbush. Gopher apple, 
silkleaf goldenaster, maidencane, meadow beauty, lavender paintbrush, 
elephant's foot, yellow- eyed grass, and dog fennel occur in the 
groundcover. 

OWNER: CD. Miller 

FUTURE PROSPECTS: Unknown. Could be logged or cleared. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: Preserve. Burn regularly. 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: Original 8/87 field survey notes and 
preliminary species lists Bob Simons submitted to KBN, kept in KBN 
files. FNAI. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES: Maps prepared by KBN 11/87 and 
submitted to Alachua County Department of Planning and Development. 

DATE: November 20, 1987. 

SOURCE: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., P.O. Box 14288, 
Gainesville, Florida 32605 904/375-8000. 



3-66 



Alac. Rank. 4-1 
11/30/87 



4.0 OTHER IMPORTANT UPIA^^TD HABITATS 

4.1 SPECIAL HABITATS 

Our attention was drawn to several areas that are already too developed, 
disturbed, or fragmented to be viable ecological preserves, but nevertheless 
have important habitat values that should be maintained. We recommend that 
the county define boundaries for these areas and develop conservation 
policies to protect the significant resources within them. Each situation 
is different so each area will require its own set of guidelines. In some 
cases all that will be needed will be cooperation with organizations like 
the FGFWFC Nongame Program, The Nature Conservancy, and/or the local Audubon 
or Native Plant Society chapters to educate the neighborhood's residents to 
appreciate their environment and leave patches of habitat here and there in 
their backyards. Other areas may require stringent development regulations 
or acquisitions or easements to preserve blocks and strips of native 
vegetation. 

The three Special Habitats we discuss below should be managed as 
conservation areas. (Letters refer to locations on Figure 3.1.) 

(A) GRASSY LAKE WOODS 

The area between Kanapaha Prairie and Horse Prairie has until recently been 

a rich mosaic of sandhills, upland pine forests, hammocks, and prairies. It 

is now being broken up into ranchette/estate size residential tracts, but 

many of the residents are leaving areas of native vegetation on their 

property and it may be possible to maintain some of the area's wildlife 

diversity. 

The hammocks here are noteworthy for the abundance of basswood and the 
presence of coralroot orchids, dropseed, green dragon, ebony spleenwort, 
grape fern, and other uncommon species. Southern red oak and mockernut 
hickory persist where upland pine forest grew prior to fire suppression. 

Kestrels nest here and indigo snakes have been reported. Bald eagles and 
sandhill cranes nest nearby. We observed wild turkey, barred owl, pileated 



4-1 



-^ Mac. Rank. 4-2 

11/30/87 

woodpecker, red- shouldered hawk, woodcock, box turtle, and broad-headed 
skink . 

(B) MILLHOPPER SANDHILLS/ROCK CREEK 

Surprisingly, the neighborhood just to the east of the Millhopper 
Square/Thornebrook Village shopping complex is still an important wildlife 
habitat. Two rare species, the short- tailed snake, a secretive burrowing 
reptile, and an endangered insect seem to still be thriving despite 
extensive residential development. Steve Gatewood of The Nature Conservancy 
has already met with homeowners and set up a plan for protecting the insect 
habitat through landowner agreements. 

(C) CROSS CREEK HAMMOCK 

Cross Creek's location between two lakes is the sort of fire-protected 
situation that typically produces fine old hammocks. We field surveyed 
several areas here and judged them to be good habitats with much aesthetic 
appeal, but not outstanding examples of natural ecological communities. The 
hammocks here still have the classic appearance of native Florida forest, 
but the signs of long-term human use that make this area so fascinating from 
a historical viewpoint must be viewed as disturbance when the habitats are 
evaluated as natural areas . 

Site conditions in the Cross Creek hammocks vary from hydric through mesic 
to xeric, but live oaks and laurel oaks dominate practically everywhere. 
Magnolia is abundant on the drier sites and cabbage palm is common on the 
wetter ones. Saw palmetto is the most plentiful understory plant. The trees 
are draped with Spanish moss and laced with muscadine, Carolina jessamine, 
trumpet creeper, cross vine, and other vines. Other common trees include 
sugarberry, pignut hickory, slash pine, swamp bay, sweetgum, wild olive, and 
small- flowered pawpaw. American holly, devil's walkingstick, redbay, water 
oak, loblolly pine, blackgum, loblolly bay, and red maple are somewhat less 
abundant. Beautyberry and coral bean are noticeable in the understory. 
From a botanical viewpoint, the most interesting aspects of this hammock are 
the abundance of guinea-hen weed, a normally uncommon herb, and the presence 
of wild coffee ( Psvchotria sulzneri ) at its northernmost inland location. 



4-2 



-»- Alac.Rank.4-3 

11/30/87 

This area's greatest ecological significance lies in its extraordinary 
concentration of bald eagle nests. 

4.2 BUFFER ZONES 

Buffer zones should be defined around all existing nature preserves and the 
exemplary upland ecological communities listed in Section 3 and 
conservation strategy guidelines should be developed for each of these 
zones. We are frequently asked how wide a buffer zone should be. It would 
be far more convenient for planners if there was a generic answer to this 
question, but the unfortunate fact is that this is the kind of thing that 
must be decided on a case by case basis. Different types and dimensions of 
buffers are needed to protect different ecological communities in different 
situations. A mesic hammock, for example, might be need no more buffer than 
a boundary line if the condos were intended to house adult professionals. 
However, if the habitat to be protected was a slope forest in a steep ravine 
and the housing complex nearby apartments for young families, the buffer 
would have to include a barrier sufficient to keep kids from trampling the 
slopes and causing erqsion problems. If the community to be preserved was a 
scrub subject to periodic conflagrations, the housing complex would need to 
be far enough away that there would be no danger of the buildings catching 
afire. And if the habitat was a flatwoods or sandhill that needed burning 
every few years and the residential development was a retirement home, the 
separation would need to be even greater to prevent conflicts between the 
needs of plant communities adapted to fire and people whose lungs cannot 
adapt to smoke. It all depends. 

With a thorough literature search and careful examination of the 
requirements of each ecological community, it would be possible to define 
meaningful zones of concern for each habitat type. Prohibiting development 
in these areas could still be challenged as arbitrary, but monitoring and 
regulating the nature and location of activity could be logically defended. 

4.3 ECOLOGICAL LINKAGES 

As Alachua County becomes an increasingly developed landscape, it is 
essential to maintain appropriate connections between ecological systems. 



4-3 



-»_ Alac.Rank.4-4 

11/30/87 

It is unfortunate that the indisputable biological importance of maintaining 
key aspects of the natural landscape arrangement has been obscured in local 
controversy. Hidden political and academic agendas have distorted concerns 
critically important to the longterm viability of our natural areas into a 
morass of misunderstanding referred to as "wildlife corridors," Clarifying 
these issues and getting on with appropriate planning for ecological 
linkages is essential to the success of any effort to preserve examples of 
Alachua County's native ecological systems. The ecological connections 
mentioned in this report should be viewed as a framework for Alachua 
County's part of a regional natural area network. The boundaries for 
linkage areas should be carefully defined and any lands within them not 
included in preserves should be managed according to the conservation 
strategy. Again, policies for these areas will have to be specifically 
adapted to the needs of each area and the ecosystems it links. 



4-4 



_^ Mac. Rank. 5-1 

11/30/87 

5.0. WFTTJ^NDS AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS 

There are a number of valuable natural areas in Alachua County that are not 
evaluated in this report. The following discussions explain why these places 
were not included and suggests how this report should be used in conjunction 
with others to form a truly comprehensive data base on the county's natural 
areas. 

5.1. WETLANDS 

We were asked to devote minimal effort to inventorying wetlands since good 
wetland maps are already available. Therefore we did not make inquiries 
specifically oriented towards wetland locations or species. 

Our site boundaries were adjusted to incorporate valuable wetlands wherever 
we found them in association with important uplands. Several of these sites 
are clearly among the county's most important examples of wetland ecological 
communities. They include, listed in no particular order, 1) Gum Root Swamp, 
an extensive complex of swamps and flatwoods which is critically important 
as a linkage between Newnan's Lake, Paynes Prairie, and Lochloosa Forest and 
the wetlands to the north; 2) Hatchet Creek, where there are seepage 
communities unlike those elsewhere in the county; 3) Lochloosa Forest, which 
incorporates River Styx, the county's best cypress strand and location of an 
important colony of endangered wood storks; 4) Sugarfoot Hammock, which 
includes part of Hogtown Prairie with an unusual stand of water elm; and 5) 
Santa Fe River, which includes outstanding tracts of floodplain swamp. 

We did not prepare reports on Buck Bay or the swamps that extend north from 
the Gum Root/Austin Gary area, but these are very important wetland linkage 
areas. There are no large areas of significant natural upland habitat in 
these regions , but bands of natural swamp and flatwoods with native 
understory should be used to maintain ecological connections between these 
wetlands and associated ecosystems. 

We accumulated notes on several other wetlands of potential significance. 
All of these were wading bird rookery or sandhill crane nesting sites except 
one. Notes from a 1980 interview with Archie Carr mention a 15-20 acre stand 



5-1 



Alac . Rank .5-2 
-^ 11/30/87 

of pure virgin blackgum at the west end of Paynes Prairie on Chitty's 
Stardust Ranch. 

• 

We have not included the rookery data here, since it changes from year to 
year. The county should set up a mechanism for regularly receiving and 
mapping rookery and crane nesting data from the Florida Game and Fresh Water 
Fish Commission. 

5.2. AQUATIC SYSTEMS 

We were told that an inventory of aquatic systems was planned, so we did not 
attempt to gather data on these unless they appeared in association with 
important uplands. Sites with obviously important aquatic ecosystems 
include 1) Santa Fe River; 2) Hornsby Springs; 3) Watermelon Pond; 4) 
Chacala Pond; 5) Hatchet Creek; 6) Mill Creek; and 7) Lochloosa Forest 
(Magnesia Springs) . Many of our other sites incorporated aquatic 
communities , but we did not attempt to evaluate their importance as examples 
of these systems. 

We suggest that eagle nest protection be considered in the evaluation of 
lakes, since we noted several nests on sites that could not be regarded as 
otherwise outstanding uplands. 

5.3. GEOLOGIC FEATURES 

Since we understood that a geological inventory was also planned, we made no 
attempt to identify features of geologic merit, although we did indicate 
when a site was said to be of geological significance. 

We also made notes of geologic structures known to support important 
biological resources, such as caves with bat colonies or cave crayfish and 
sinkholes with unusual ferns. Thorough evaluation of the biological values 
of these systems should be done in conjunction with the geologic inventory. 

Inventorying and monitoring geological features is complicated by the 
extreme sensitivity of many of these systems. Caves and sinks attract 
explorers whose trampling and collecting can quickly devastate a site. Those 



5-2 



-^ Mac. Rank. 5-3 

11/30/87 

who cherish fins examples of these systems are therefore justifiably 
secretive about their whereabouts. We have addressed this problem by 
maintaining all specific information of this nature in our confidential 
files. With permission from those who supplied the data to us and the 
assurance that a system for keeping the data secure was in place, we could 
release it for appropriate purposes. We have passed on all new information 
of this nature to the Florida Natural Areas Inventory where it will be 
flagged data- sensitive and keyed to site locations only by computer code. 

Sites with geological features that appear to be of significance include 1) 
Sugarfoot Hammock; 2) Hickory Sink; 3) Hornsby Springs; and 4) Domino 
Hammock. 

5.4. PUBLIC MNDS AND PRESERVES 

Since lands already in public ownership or managed by a conservation 
organization are generally far less vulnerable than other natural areas, we 
devoted little of our time to evaluating them. We did consider lands already 
protected in developing assessments of the preservation status of each 
community, i.e., how much is already preserved and how good is it compared 
to what is still without protection? 

San Felasco Hammock State Preserve might well have been at the top of our 
list were it not already protected. Other preserves that include areas we 
would probably have listed include Paynes Prairie State Preserve, Oleno 
State Park, Devil's Millhopper State Geological Site, Austin Gary Memorial 
Forest, and Morningside Nature Center. 

Since our directive was to do an ecological evaluation, rather than a 
preservation plan, we did not go to the trouble of mapping all the lands 
already in preservation or public ownership and relating their ecological 
features to those on the sites we recommended. We suggest that this be done 
soon, since some of our sites incorporate or are associated with already 
secure tracts that may enhance their value. 



5-3 



..^ Alac.Rar.k.5-4 

11/30/87 

It is important to remember that purchasing a site or designating it as a 
preserve does not guarantee protection of the ecological communities. 
Ongoing management is needed to maintain communities isolated from the 
supportive matrix of a natural landscape. Trespassers must be prevented 
from degrading the habitat. Exotic pest species must be removed. Fires 
must be set to compensate for those roads firemen do not allow to reach the 
site naturally. Managers will need funds to pay for these activities and 
political support to see that their needs are given appropriate attention. 

5.5. SMALL SITES 

Unless we had already had information indicating that they were of 
extraordinary value, we did not examine sites smaller than around 100 
acres. The long-term viability of such sites is questionable and they are 
generally difficult to manage. Small tracts are also inherently less 
diverse; they just do not have room for as many things. 

Even though areas of lesser acreage cannot compete with the sites we 
recommend as outstanding examples of ecological communities, many of them 
are still well worth preserving. If they can be linked with other natural 
areas or buffered adequately it may be possible to maintain their values 
indefinitely. Even in isolation, they would be valuable additions to 
neighborhood parks and urban greenspace. A site's flora and fauna would 
change over time, but it would still be good urban wildlife habitat. We 
therefore recommend that natural areas down to about an acre in size be 
inventoried, with priority effort going into surveying areas that serve as 
linkages between larger natural systems. 

Size implies different things in different ecosystems. Hammocks generally do 
reasonably well on small tracts, since they naturally occur on relatively 
restricted sites. On the other hand, fire -maintained communities cannot be 
properly managed on less than about 40 acres. 



5-4 



Alac.Rank. 6-1 
11/30/87 



6.0 PRIORITY RANKING OF SIGMIFIC.J^aNT NATURAL AREAS 

6 . 1 CRITERIA 

Table 6.1 presents the criteria we used for ranking Alachua County's 
significant natural areas. The first criteria, vulnerability, was 
incorporated because it is the key criteria emphasized in DCA's Model 
Conservation Element. The next four criteria (rarity, connectedness, 
completeness, and manageability) came from the October 22, 1986 draft of the 
Alachua County Conservation Element. 

After we began working with the ranking system, we felt that there was an 
aspect of ecological quality not addressed by the first five criteria, so 
we added a sixth: nature-oriented human use potential. 

The completeness criteria combined both habitat diversity and species 
diversity within each habitat. We found it difficult to mesh these aspects 
of diversity into a quality concept we could score consistently. If we were 
to do it all over again, we might be inclined to separate these into two 
very important assessments into separate criteria. 

H.T. Odura suggested that we incorporate a criteria evaluating the energy 
cost of replacing the site's ecological communities. We feel that this 
would be appropriate for certain types of analyses, but is not relevant to 
the situation here. Where people are faced with the prospect of recreating 
native ecosystems on strip-mined lands, for example, it is useful to 
evaluate the cost-benefit ratios of various scenarios. Alachua County is 
urbanizing so rapidly that any site not intentionally preserved will soon be 
committed to some other use. There will be no place to put substitute 
ecosystems, so there is not much use in assessing replacement costs, 

6 . 2 SCORING 

Scores were linked to the quality levels described in Table 6.2. These 
descriptions are intended only to convey the concept of a quality level. 
Few sites fit the description for a certain score level perfectly. Where 
part of a site rated high on a criteria and part rated low, we gave it an 



6-1 




Table 6.1 Site Rartsang Criteria - Alachua County Uplands Inventory 



1) Vulnerability 

This criteria addresses the likelihood of events which might 
degrade or destroy the site. 

2) Rarity 

This criteria incorporates the rarity of each of the site's 
community types, the rarity of the species it provides habitat for, and 
the uniqueness of the site's special features, such as geological 
formations or champion trees. Rarity must be viewed at several scales: 
county, state, and global. 

3) Connectedness 

This criteria concerns how the site links to related elements of 
the landscape. Does it lie within or constitute a link between 
segments of an actual or potential wildlife corridor, a green space 
zone, or a trail system? Is it an inholding or a buffer for another 
natural area? How do the habitats relate to those nearby? 

4) Completeness 

This is basically an index of the site's ecological quality. Are 
the ecological communities representative examples with a full 
complement of species? How diverse are the habitats? The flora? The 
fauna? Has the site been degraded? To what degree? Are the "missing" 
species gone forever or^ is the basic integrity of the system still 
intact enough that there is realistic potential for reintroductions? 

5) Manageability 

This is an assessment of long-term viability. Is the site big 
enough? Would its preservation and the maintenance of its species be 
compatible with present and future neighboring land uses? Are 
degraded habitats in restorable condition? Would it be practical to 
do prescribed burning in fire-maintained habitats? Would there be 
problems with trespassers or neighbors? How expensive would it be to 
manage the land properly? 

6) Nature-Oriented Human Use Potential 

This concerns the site's inherent suitability for human activities 
dependent upon non-destructive use of natural features. Is it a 
documented research site or especially appropriate for scientific 
studies? Does it have a variety of habitats and transition zones 
through which a nature trail could be routed? Is it a beautiful place 
that would be aesthetically enjoyable for the public? How difficult 
would it be to construct and maintain trails and other facilities for 
passive recreation without damaging the environment? 



6-2 



Table 6.1 Site Ranking Criteria - Alachua County Uplands Inventory 



1) Vulnerability 

This criteria addresses the likelihood of events which might 
degrade or destroy the site, 

2) Rarity 

This criteria incorporates the rarity of each of the site's 
community types, the rarity of the species it provides habitat for, and 
the uniqueness of the site's special features, such as geological 
formations or champion trees. Rarity must be viewed at several scales: 
county, state, and global. 

3) Connectedness 

This criteria concerns how the site links to related elements of 
the landscape. Does it lie within or constitute a link between 
segments of an actual or potential wildlife corridor, a green space 
zone, or a trail system? Is it an inholding or a buffer for another 
natural area? How do the habitats relate to those nearby? 

4) Completeness 

This is basically an index of the site's ecological quality. Are 
the ecological communities representative examples with a full 
complement of species? How diverse are the habitats? The flora? The 
fauna? Has the site been degraded? To what degree? Are the "missing" 
species gone forever ot is the basic integrity of the system still 
intact enough that there is realistic potential for reintroductions? 

5) Manageability 

This is an assessment of long-terra viability. Is the site big 
enough? Would its preservation and the maintenance of its species be 
compatible with present and future neighboring land uses? Are 
degraded habitats in restorable condition? Would it be practical to 
do prescribed burning in fire-maintained habitats? Would there be 
problems with trespassers or neighbors? How expensive would it be to 
manage the land properly? 

6) Nature-Oriented Human Use Potential 

This concerns the site's inherent suitability for human activities 
dependent upon non-destructive use of natural features. Is it a 
documented research site or especially appropriate for scientific 
studies? Does it have a variety of habitats and transition zones 
through which a nature trail could be routed? Is it a beautiful place 
that would be aesthetically enjoyable for the public? How difficult 
would it be to construct and maintain trails and other facilities for 
passive recreation without damaging the environment? 



6-2 



Table 6.2 Scoring System for Site Priority Ranking - Alachua County 
Uplands Inventory 



Vulnerability 

1 -- Preservation guaranteed by deed restriction, easement, or 
established regulatory authority. 

2 -- Respected by conservation-minded landowner. Some regulatory 
protection. Very low development potential. 

3 -- Owner has no sale or development plans. Heirs may be inclined 
to sell. Borderline case as to regulatory protection. Located in 

low- growth area. Marginal development site. 

4 -- Owner likely to sell or develop, but action not imminent. No 
significant regulatory protection. Located in high- growth area. Good 
development site. 

5 -- Slated for development or prime real estate currently up for 
sale. No significant regulatory protection. 



Completeness , 

1 -- Poor habitat. Low species and community diversity. Seriously 
degraded. Too tiny and/or isolated to maintain normal flora and fauna. 



2 -- Fair habitat. Moderate species and community diversity. 
Degraded, but restorable. Might be capable of supporting populations of 
relatively tolerant species. 

3 -- Good habitat. Good diversity of species or communities. 
Slight degradation. Probably capable of maintaining populations of most 
typical species. 

4 -- Excellent habitat. Diverse species, communities, and 
successional stages. Practically all appropriate species except 
rarities and large predators present and thriving. Excellent potential 
for reintroduction of most missing species. 

5 -- Outstanding habitat. Diverse species, communities, and 
natural successional stages, including a number of rarities. Large 
enough to maintain long-term disturbance/succession matrix. Sizeable 
gene pools due to size and or links to similar habitat areas. Potential 
for retention or reintroduction of full normal flora and fauna, 
including large predators. 



6-3 



Rarity -^ 

1 -- Common community types in poor to average condition. Habitat 
types widespread throughout county. No rare animals or plants. No 
significant occurrences of anything ranked higher than 4 on FNAI ' s 
state scale. No significant geological features or wildlife sites. No 
trees of extraordinary size or age. 

2 -- Typical community types still represented by extensive 
acreages in Alachua County. A few uncommon species, but no significant 
occurrences of anything ranked higher than 3 on FNAI's state scale. No 
major geological features or wildlife sites. No mature forests or 
outstanding examples of natural communities. 

3 -- Good examples of natural communities. Habitat types well 
represented statewide, but scarce in Alachua County. A few rare 
species, but not many ranked 2 on FNAI's state scale and none ranked 
higher. Geological features or wildlife sites of moderate value. Some 
old growth, but no large tracts or stands of "living museum" quality. 

4 -- Excellent examples of natural communities, some of them 
scarce. A number of rare species, but none dependent upon this site for 
survival. Several species FNAI ranks 1 or 2 on state scale. No 
significant occurrence for a globally endangered (Gl) species or 
community. Important geological feature or wildlife site. Extensive 
tract of old growth. One of the best sites of its kind in Alachua 
County . ^ 

5 -- Rare community type. Extraordinary example of a natural 
community. Diverse array of superb habitats, several of them scarce. 
Many rare species, including a number FNAI ranks 1 or 2 on state and/or 
global scales. Critical habitat for a globally endangered species (Gl) . 
Unique geological feature or wildlife site. Nationally significant. 



Manageability 

1 -- Too small and/or degraded for maintenance or reestablishment 
of normal ecosystem processes, such as periodic burning or flooding. 
Highly vulnerable to uncontrollable external impacts. Probably beyond 
hope. 

2 -- Location and/or extent of degradation would make management 
difficult and expensive. Questionable whether protection/restoration 
programs would be fully successful. 

3 -- Could be maintained in or restored to good condition, but 
would require vigiliant management. Location and/or historic use 
suggests chronic problems with trespassers and/or neighbors. Special 
programs such as exotic plant removal or hydrological restoration 
required. Difficult location for management. 



4 -- Habitats in good condition, but requiring regular attention, 
such as prescribed burning. Effective buffering from most external 
impacts possible. Location and surrounding land uses reasonably 
convenient for management. 

5 -- Low-maintenance habitat types in excellent condition. 
Inherently well buffered from most external impacts. Location minimizes 
problems with trespassers and neighbors and facilitates management 
access . 



Connectedness 

1 -- Isolated from natural habitats of significant size by a large 
expanse of unsuitable habitat or a virtually impenetrable barrier (from 
standpoint of organisms inhabiting site) . No significant connecting 
corridors. Not situated strategically for interconnection of natural 
areas or trail systems. 

2 -- Isolated from natural habitats of significant size by a 
moderate expanse of unsuitable habitat. No significant connecting 
corridors. Not situated strategically for interconnection of natural 
areas or trail systems. 

3 -- Isolated from natural habitats of significant size by an 
expanse of marginally suitable habitat. Narrow connecting corridors. 
Useful situation for interconnection of natural areas or trail systems. 

4 -- Not broadly joined to large areas of natural habitat, but 
close or connected by significant existing or potentially restorable 
habitat corridors. Good situation for connection of natural areas or 
trail systems. 

5 -- Directly contiguous with large areas of natural habitat along 
extensive boundaries. Critical situation for interconnecting natural 
areas or trail systems. 



Nature-Oriented Human Use Potential : 

1 -- Unsuitable for passive recreation. Aesthetically unappealing. 
Little scientific or educational value. 

2 -- Suitable for limited passive recreation, but special 
management might be necessary to prevent adverse impacts. Pleasant 
setting. Useful site for school or nature center field trips or student 
research. 



3 -- Suitable for limited passive recreation. Attractive 
environment. Ecologically interesting enough to be a good outing 
destination for local groups like Audubon, Sierra, etc. Useful site for 
scientific research. 

4 -- Good for several types of passive recreation. Scenic. 
Suitable for nature trails and/or environmental center. Valuable site 
for scientific research. Special enough to be a popular regional 
recreation destination. 

5 -- Outstanding site for a variety of passive recreational uses. 
Excellent for nature trails and/or environmental center. 
Extraordinarily scenic. Important well-documented scientific study 
site. Features so exceptional site could attract national/international 
visitors . 



"*- Alac .Rank. 6-4 

• / 11/30/87 

intermediate score related to the proportion and importance of the areas of 
different quality. 

Our scores were based on the assumption that the site boundaries were those 
we recommended. If smaller sites are considered, these ranking scores will 
not be as clear an estimate of relative quality. Excluding an important 
tract could drastically affect a site's score. 

Some decisions were so clearly borderline that we chose to effectively 
expand our five-point scale into a ten-point scale by occasionally giving 
intermediate scores such as 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5. 

It may seem that our scores tend towards the high end of the scale. This 
makes sense in perspective, since the sites which would have received low 
scores were screened out prior to the formal ranking process. 

The following explanations clarify specific scoring considerations. 

It is important to remember that our vulnerability scores are based on 
educated guesses by ecologists and not on careful analyses by planners with 
all the latest data on urban growth patterns and development plans. 

Connectedness assumes maintenance of existing natural areas where 
preservation or conservation is recommended and loss of any other links. 

We assessed connectedness on a regional basis. Thus, a site like Watermelon 
Pond that does not link very well to anything within Alachua County still 
gets a good connectedness score because it is an integral part of the 
Wacassassa ecosystem extending through Gilchrist and Levy counties. 

Completeness was scored largely on the basis of diversity. Few scores are 
near the top of the range because most of our natural areas have already 
lost a number of species that were originally components of the ecosystem. 
We no longer have any panthers, red wolves, or red-cockaded woodpeckers and 



6-7 



'"*"' Alac. Rank. 5-5 

11/30/87 

species like bears and fox squirrels are restricted to fragments of their 
former ranges . 

Manageability scores were reduced for fire -maintained communities near 
highways and airports because of the relative likelihood of future burning 
restrictions in those areas. 

In evaluating nature-oriented human use potential, we attempted to ignore 
all aspects of human use not specifically tied to the ecological 
characteristics of the site; We did not take into account need or demand for 
what the site has to offer, only what it is capable of providing. 

6 . 3 ANALYSIS 

Computer runs reflecting several ranking scenarios were conducted to 
determine how the sites would compare according to different conservation 
planning philosophies. 

Table 6.3.1 gives our 'recommended priority ranking for significant upland 
ecological communities. In weighting the scores to give the most accurate 
overall assessment of the sites relative importance, we felt it was 
important to give extra weight to the range of species and habitat types 
represented (completeness) and to the size of the tract. To do this, we 
grouped the sites into small (a few hundred acres or less), medium (a 
thousand to several thousand acres), and large (thousands of acres), then 
multiplied the completeness score by a size factor. For small sites we used 
a multiplier of one, for medium, three, for large, five. 

Table 6.3.2 disregards the sites' degree of endangerment and ranks them 
solely on quality. 

Table 6.3.3 omits consideration of both endangerment and use potential and 
lists the sites in order of scores on strictly ecological parameters. 



6-8 



o o in ^ in m 



o IT* w^ in o O o ir\ o o 

o 0» ^* in 



■^ ^T *^ ^ "*J' 



minoomoin^minooo 

cococoh^'O'^ininvj'roror^O* 
ro^o^^K)lOKi^^^Oh^^nfO^-if\i 



"8 



OJ V) (0 

.^ o ■- 



in o i/^ o C3 in 
«j- m M >» ^i K> 



in m o in o o o 
K> vf vj- Kl Kl »» ^ 



O O O 

ro Ki c\J 



inininoinoooomooo 



o 

•4- 



in o o 

•j^ ^ -J- 



o o 



in o o o o 
>*■ ro ~4- ir> >T 



in o 



O O 



O O 

vj- vi- 



es o in o o o 

-J- to rO vj- M vT 



o o 

ro Kl 



O C3 O O O O 

m m m in in ro 



oooooooooo 
roro»OKiKi»-roMtoM 



ooooooooooooo 



X K X X X K 



xxxxxxxxxx 



xxxxxxxxxxxxx 



o o o o in o 
in vj vj- vj- ro -4- 



oinoooooooo 

KlK>~J-KIKl'-IfOKIfOrO 



moooooininooooo 
MMrjKifNJtorjcjKiKicjrMfvj 



"8 



a. 

5 



o o o o o 
m m m vj" •'^ 



ininooooooino^ 
ro-JK)mKiviKiinvyvr 



ooooooooinoooo 
rofO-JKiro-j-^JfOfMKifMvi-to 



a 

3 



o o in o o 
vj- vj- K) Kl ro 



ooooomoooo 
lArorotorororofMrjfvj 



o o o o 

ro ro fvi vj- 



oooooinooo 
(MfNJrorororororvirj 



m o o in o in 
fo ro ro ro -J- «*• 



ooooooooinm 
inrororoinrMNj«\i>j-<M 



m o o o o o o 
ro in ro (M ro ro ro 



o o 
ro ro 



o o 
ro ro 



"8 

o 

3 



"2 



^ 41 
4) > 



C — ID ra u. 



o 




o 


(/) 


^ 10 


"8 


4) _. 


o 


U 0) 


3 



* -= ^ 

? ^ ^ 



4» w E -- 



— <-■ jC 



o 



ID n — 



•- IM ro >* in -^ 



<*- -^ u 



3 JC ■— 10 



r>- 00 o 



<J 


V) 






fli 


o 


c 


t. 


0) 


(0 




r 


_* 




c 


ta 


t^ 


C- 


ro 




<o 


L. 




O 


ro 


ii 


«l 


g ^ 


JC 

s. 


8 


jf 


-J 


o 


CO 


u 


1- 


u. 


l/J 


M 


JC 


■5 2 


QC 


JC 


j: 






V 


ro 


n 


JC 


^ 


u 


CO 






4-* 


E 


iii 


.V 


N 






r 


^J 


1- u 


r 


^ 


^ 


8 




X 


n 


r 


t. 


a> 


n 


<o o 


ro 


•^ 


(0 


u 


T 


ro 


o 


r 


z 


a. z 


:>^ 


o 


Z 


</> 


a. 


u. 


a: 


m 


M 


z 


i/> 


O 


^ r\j 


ro 


** 


m 


>o 


r>. 


eo 


o> 


o 

(M 


(VJ 


CM 
(M 


ro 

(M 



C C ^ JC J= 

<U — (/) o *-» *-' 



(/> o Z m 



6-9 





.»_ 


o 




CO 


1— 


-n 






<u 












r 


0) 


_^ 


0) 


u> 


0) 


*r- 


-) 


• p- 


L. 




•M 


o 


c 


c 






0) 


01 

1_ 


^ 


4-' 

o 



en 

c 



c 

"8 



"S 



O 



1 

"q. 

3 






«> 



ir> o in in o 



in in o 
o* 0» O* 



m in 

CO CO 



inooininoinininoo 
r^t--N.>0»0>Oinininmm 



o in o 
in >!• %j- 



in o o 
K) M oj 



in o o 



m in 



morn 



-* -a- K> «* 



o o m in 

^ >* KI 



o o in 
>* M KI 



ooooooomcsoininoo 

KIKIKIKIKIC\IK)CM(\JKI(MtNJrj{\l 



o o o 



ooomoc3inoo 



o o o 

vj- ^ ■* 



o o o o o 

>)• KI -4- K> >* 



mom 

Kl KI K) 



o o o 

>J- Kl Kl 



o o C3 o in 



in -4- >j- vi- vj- Kl 



ooinoinooooooinoooinooooooo 

-4-KIK1vTKlrOKIKIK1KIKIfNJK)KIK|CMKlKlfVI(NJfMrj(M 



o o in o in o in 



min«j-vjin»»>j-Ki 



o o o o 

-* Kl Kl m 



oooooininoocj 

KIKimKI^TfMvJ-vJ-KIK) 



o o o o o o 

-J- PO vt Kl V* Kl 



oinininooooooooo 

»4-K>-a-KIK1KimKlKIK1KlKlvl- 



OOOOOOC30inOOOC300 
KlfMK)KIK1<MfNJKIKIf\IKItMtNJrjf\J 



inoomooinooomoooooooo 

rOKI«MvrKIK>K)in>»K)K»Kl>*(\JmfMinKIKl 



o 

Kl 



o in o 



^KI(NJvtKlK»KlKl 



^ 


o 


c 




V 


> 




^ 


o 




1- 


c 


1- 


QC 


a 




o 


V 


(/) 


i/> 


01 


u- 


i- 


X 



■^ 8 



•- CNJ Kl -4 




(A 












§ 






*i* 






flO 






v^ 


M 




u. 


u 




O 


§ 


*-> 


£ 


3 


Ol 


•M 




t^- 


■ 


n 


o 


< 


u- 


3 


c> 




ra 


^ 


O 


•— 


<a 


(A 


t- 



o 
o 



6-10 



o a 

•— o 



o 


o 


O 


ut 


ir\ 


u-» 


in 


o 


in 


in 


o 


o 


in 


in 


o 


o 


O 


O 


m 


m 


in 


in 


m 


o 


in 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


N- 


t^ 


>o 


vO 


in 


in 


m 


>* 


>«• 


■* 


«* 


M 


K1 


t<\ 


M 


M 


K> 


(NJ 


fVI 


ro 


f\j 


pj 


JVJ 


JI 


■^ 


^ 


jr 


o 



c « — 

O CA (D 
.p- 3 — 



m in o o in in o 
>*■ ro in vj- K) K) ■* 



oooininoinooo 



inoocaooinoincao 
roK>(vJroKiro(MKi(MfMru 



o o o 



o o o in o 
in ^ >j- -J- >!■ 



o o o o 
»»■ >* K> 



in o o C3 



o o in 
Ki ro K) 



ooininoooo 
>j-rororo-*>j-roro 



in -J- -* 



>!• ro -* -* v» 



o o o o o o o 
in -4- vj- N* v» ro -4- 



inooinoc30C300inoooinooooo 
rorororororororororopjrororofvirJPorjfNjcj 



■8 

M 
<D 
CD 

VI 

O 



"8 

u 



^inoocsinomo^ 



invjin^j-inrOvj-vtro^* 



o o o o o 

ro m ro m ro 



o o o 

ro ro ro 



o o in in o 



o o o 
•J- <Ni ro 



o in o 



•J- %4- >» 



minoooooo 
roroinrorororo^ 



oooooooinooooooo 
rororjroPvirorororocvjrofMrorjro 



o o o 



rj rvj f\j 



a 

Q. 

3 



ininooooinoooooinoooooooinoino 
rovrrof\jroinrororo-j-<Mroro<Minroin«j-rorofMro>*-j- 



o o o 
to ro ro 



< 



s 









"- ■§ 

































a 






.^ 




in 




M 










O 


6 


































-R 




•5 




1- 




T? 










4-* 


3 
*-> 












^ 


















^ 


o 


I. 




^ 




o 




o 










_^ 


CO 










*J 


u 


















o 


o 


o 


V 


CO 


CO 


u. 




3 










< 


~^ 








<n 


<n 










y 


*J 








f 


lA 


in 




(/) 


8 






*-> 


*-l 










u. 






c 


O) 


a> 


P 








U) 




..^ 







CO 




u 




V 


^ 


CO 


(/) 






^ 


u 




^ 




V 


c 


1- 


C 








o 


8 


ji< 


• ^ 


H 


T 




? 


t(— 


c> 


o 


v> 


o 




CD 






o 


^ 


0) 


0) 


^ 


> 




o 


<Q 


^ 


1? 




o. 


o 


X 


A 


s 


O 


CO 


.^ 


t 


V) 


Q 


U- 


1_ 




>- 


a 


CO 


W 


u 


c 


• ^ 


t- 


u. 


z 


<J 








oe 


0) 




2 


T;- 


U. 


o 


u 


<D 


4-> 


o 


C 




O 


^ 


0) 


I. 


_l 


o 


u 




o: 


u. 






Q 


i5 


^ 


c 




u 


*-» 


in 






n 


n 


_J 


0) 


u 


E 


t. 


u. 


o> 




( } 




I- 


o 


CO 




lo 


10 


4J 


P 


Q. 


01 


o 


w 


u 


C 




1. 


r 










( ) 


CO 


V 




o 


_y 




♦-» 


—t 






01 




<n 


o 


t 




0) 


— ^ 


— 




•p- 


*-» 


CO 


CO 


r 


en 


a> 




CO 


OC 





CD 


t- 


CO 


0) 


c/> 


V 


."" 




u. 


^ 


s 


o 


CO 


ID 


«J 


g 


13 




o 
a. 


8 


<u 

CZl 


w 




CO 


0) 


</) 


_l 


o 


6. 
o 


O 


o 


> 


u. 


CD 


z 


c 


o 


a 


^ 


^^ 


L. 




■0 




1- 


ID 


JC 




or 




r 


.rz 


n 




V 


r 


r 


r 


£ 


>. 


r 


CO 


c 


j: 


•p* 


^ 


4-> 


^ 


a 


c 


U 


— ^ 


V 




u 


t- 




T) 


*-» 


O 


CO 


C/l 


r 


*-» 






^ 


i> 




*-> 


*^ 


c 


u 


c 


o 


8 


? 




10 

JZ 


.•;; 


4-f 
(0 


r4 

3 


4-< 


a 


^ 




u 
o 


i- 


c 
m 


s 


r 


J? 


S 


— ' 


4) 


8 




c 

CD 


l. 
o 


s 


a. 


== 


to 


3C 


—1 


i/> 


CD 


u 


s: 


J 


oa 


^ 


a. 


ID 


u. 




CL 


^ 


z 


«/) 


to 


o 


Z 


to 


oe 


CO 


to 


z 


to 




















o 


,- 


<M 


ro 


V*- 


in 


VI 


r^ 


en 


o 


o 


^_ 


CM 


ro 


^t 


in 


•o 


N- 


CO 


o> 


«- 


CJ 


ro 


•-* 


in 


>o 


t^ 


00 


o 


»" 


«- 


•- 


»- 














rj 


(M 


fNJ 


fNJ 


(VJ 


CM 


CNJ 


f\J 


rj 


<M 



6-11 



Alac.Rank.6-9 
■^- 11/30/87 

Table 6.3.4 ranks the sites in order of their prospects for long-term 
viability. We felt the main determinants of this were connectedness, 
manageability, diversity, and size, so we weighted the scores to emphasize 
these parameters. We took as an assumption that the site was to be 
preserved, so short-term vulnerability had no bearing on this analysis. 

Table 6.3.5 is weighted to reflect the usual concerns in establishing a 
greenbelt: threats to the parcels, recreational and educational potentials, 
management costs, and continuity. 

Table 6.3.6 shows how we think The Nature Conservancy (TNC) , the leading 
private organization involved in the purchase of nature preserves, would 
rank these sites. They are most concerned with protecting rare species and 
use a methodology that considers threats to the site and the prospects for 
successfully maintaining it, but they do not have a process for assessing 
connectedness . 

Since there has been so much discussion about wildlife corridors and 
natural area networks, we did a final ranking run (Table 6.3.7) omitting 
these considerations. 

Taken together, these tables constitute a sensitivity analysis which shows 
that no one factor is overwhelmingly important in determining the ranking 
order of these sites. Eliminating consideration of a criteria may change a 
site's place in the order by three or four slots, but the general pattern 
remains about the same even when the emphasis changes. The best sites stay 
near the top and the weakest ones stay near the bottom. 

We grouped the sites into high, mediiim, and low priority categories in line 
with the breakpoints between groups of scores in Table 6.3.1. Neither the 
splits between these group nor the exact order of sites should be taken too 
seriously, however similar ranking experience suggests that a statistical 
analysis would show no significant difference between sites ranked within 
four or five slots of each other. 



6-12 



^ 



CO—' 

«> v> a 
._ ^ .- 



O 

V 

3 

10 



O 

4-' 

c 
a 

e 

V 

I- 

g 

o 



o 



"8 

(0 





01 


^ 




tsJ 


Q. 


05 


• p— 


If— 


0) 


Crt 


4^ 


t> 




• 


C 




D 


u 




a; 


o 






p- 


(0 




Q 


1- 


o 


L) 


(U 


1- 




*-< 


o 




••- 


u 



"8 



3 



O 

1. 



01 

2 



in m in 
o 03 «3- 



omininoininmoc3inc3CDC3inOinmo 



in o o 

S. >0 vO '«■—•*' rOMKirooo>0-eot^K.<Ominin-j-hO<M 
MrorOKiKiKitOKifotorvJ<Mf\i<MfMrjrg{MfM<M(\j(\j 



in o in 
vj- in fo 



in in 



o m o m o 



■J- K> to lO »T 



o o o o 
ro CM K) «»• 



momoinmcsoooinoo 

f\lfMfMM>*rOIOK>rOfMfVJK)(NJ 



ooomoooinom 



in-*«»>T^~*^^^ 



o o o in 
Ki in hO lO 



ocjinooooooo 



vj -* K> -* ^1- 



•J- vj- Kl -* 



in o o o o 
fO ro K) -* ro 



ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
inminininK)KiKiK)KiKi«— KifOKiroro«— m»-»-'— '-»-'-'— «-«-'- 



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 



ooooinoinoooooooooooooinoinoinoooo 
invivTvrro«4-rovrtOK)K>>4-rororoi>nf\ito(\iK)K)ro(\ifOf\if\iro(Nif\) 



o o o o 
in m in ** 



in in o 
-* »*• Kl 



in o o 
M m in 



o in o o o 



oooooooino 
^Na-KiroK)ro-*rjro 



o o o 



^ ro rvj K) 



o o in o o in 



-a- -* lo to K) vj- 



oooooinooooooooooooooinoo 
totoinrvJtotorofNJtotof\ifsjfsj-j-rototototofMfOfO(\J 



in o o in 

to to to to 



Omooooooinino 
^vi-tOfOinrJtorj^tNJin 



OOOOinooo 
fOfotorjtointofO 



C3 o o o 



to to -J- to 



"8 



I- tt» c 

.^ 0) t- o 

o > o ^ a. 

C) ••— li- u 

U QC 2 c 

U (O E O 

o in E — ' 

O U. Q 10 Oj 

U O — < I- 

•— *-> x: u (u 

CD C U L. .u 

L. CO o <0 to 

o. CO —I en 3 



= 1 



t 



^ c — • 



0) «-« 

o o 

c- O 

IJ H- 

c 

— ' ID 



31 «> 
C/) t- 

o 



c — • ifl -n — — 

— u. (/) C CD 0) 






! IS 



(0 

a 

<D Ji< -M 
CO O 



o 








^ 








u 








u 


1/) 






M 




^.^ 


.^^ 


Q 


13 




■»-» 


CD 


.V 


U) 


_^ 


C 


J>^ 


1/) 


0) 


0) 


8 


3: 


iB 


§ 


8 


O 


Li. 


C- 


a: 




= 


4-* 


p 


o 




ij 




4>> 




CD 


£ 


u. 


r 




CA 


c 


1- 


_^ 


ID 




(0 


V 






10 


u. 


s 


ID 


to 


LA- 


■n 


o 


ID 






.^ 






I- 


CL 


CO 


c« 


o 


O 


r 


ID 


10 






^ 


r 


r 


*j 


•M 


N 


F 


8 


t. 




o 


u 


r 


IM 




o 


^ 


u 


o 


CO 


3 


ID 


I- 


JI 


0) 


z 


CO 


m 


a. 


u. 


CO 


C3 


c/> 



■8 



5^ 



ID — ' 



ID O O 



a) <o 0) 



— CO 4) > a: 



0) 5 
lU o 

OQ CO 



«-e\jfo-*in<ot^coo> 



o «- rsj to vj- in 



>OS.coc>>o»-<MtOvj-in<of>-ooo 
«-.-.-.-rvjrMf\ifMt\icMf\jrvjiMr\j 



6-13 



0) <0 

■'- o 



ooinmoinomcaminOOinininoooininoooinoooo 
eo^3-Mfvj«-ooo>0«eocoeooor^in>*rOfvJ«— ooooo«eoeo^.y3^j- 



C o -- 

VMS 

.^ 3 — 

I. 4-' 

o c c 

■ 10 tl 

«» 5 ti 

«- 3 o 

3 = a. 



moininoomir>ininooooomoooooooinmi/\ooo 
v»inrOKi>»--*»»K>Ki>*«»->»to^roroK>K»rororotNiKifMCMtMr\j<\jf\j 



o o 



C3 in C3 o o 

vj- -J- vj vr >* 



oooooinoom 



CD C3 o in 
vj- >!• r>o M 



C3 o m 



o o in o o 

>* Ki ro K) fO 



«> 

M 

c 
o 
u 



c 



O C3 O 



C3 in in o C3 

-4- to Kl M »* 



O O O O 
«* ro Kl -4- 



c30inoomc30oc30oooo 
KlKifMfMK>f>JrOKiM<M(\irorofvJrg 



fb 



c 
o 

"S 

M 

a 



"8 
*-> 

u 

g 



o o in m o o in 
in in .<!■ ro vj- «* ^ 



o o o 
m in K> 



ooooinoooincDOoooooo 

vTK)KIK>>rinMfMfVJ-*in^K)vJ-K1tO«* 



ooinoooooin 

-J-~*v»-inK)MfOhOKI 



mooooooooooooooinooo 
rotOK)torjroKirOK>MfM(\)>*«M(MtofMfNjrj 



"S 

a 
"a 

3 



5 

o 
o 



in o 



oinooooinooooinoooooooooooinoo 
inro-*MmKiK>r>j»*mK>»*io>*N*K)iOfvjrofvJKiK)tOfNJMro 



3 
> 



CA 

s 



a 
o 



in 



I- 
o 

L. 
(0 



o 

>» o 

U H- 
O I. 



o 



— ' a i/> •— 

v a <u Q o 
E — m o Q. 



a) — ' 



4J (0 

3 o 



So—' 



"8 



^ 
2 





t. 




O 














o 








V 


u 




3 










(A 




u 








t- 


(/) 




4-> 

19 




4-> 
CO 




j^ 


8 


a 


lA 

ID 






jx: 


a 


? 




lA. 


0) 


0) 

I. 


V 


X 


s 


% 


0) 


8 




0) 

o 


t. 


o 






01 


o 


V 


c 


*-* 


3 


U. 


a: 


.^ 


1- 


a. 


a. 


M 


C 


I. 


u. 




t 


ID 


CO 






0) 


u 






z 


fl) 


( > 




_^ 


(0 


.^ 




c 


U) 


a; 




Q 


c 


Q 




ID 


10 


3: 


u. 


♦-» 


ID 


— 


1- 


0) 


j: 


? 


c_ 


Q 


^J 


_^ 


> 






8 


</> 


O 


o 


u_ 


(0 


c > 


o 


0) 


O 




O 


in 




1- 






a 


^ 




x: 


r. 


£ 


^ 


c. 


^ 


Q£ 


JC 


10 


>. 


ID 


CD 


o 


_^ 




u 


o 




t. 




4-* 


N 


^ 


J-* 


c 

(0 


1. 


-^ 


— ' 


IS 


1. 


z 


^ 


0) 


S 


1- 

o 


3 


8 


c 

10 


^ 


Q. 


z 


£ 


s 


t/> 


m 


o 


i/> 


O 


z 


m 


oc 


(/> 



^ 4^ 4J 4-1 
C V) — (0 



^ 


(0 


< 


~^ 




u. 


4) 




.^ 


V 


ID 


U) 


_l 


o 




t. 


4-' 


.^^ 


10 


V 


10 


y 


0) 




£ 


j= 



1/14-' — 



•-t\iro-*in>or^ooo> 



o«-rgKi«*in^of^ooo> 



o«-rjfO»»in>ot^coo 
c>j(Mrvj(M(\J(M(MrNjr\jr\j 



6-14 



c 
o 
o 



01 (0 

— o 



o o u-v o in m o 



o o IT-, in o o 



mLnoooomvnooomin 
0>00>00>eoN-«0^min 



-J- vt vT 



o 



8: 

< 



"8 



c 0> — • 

o V) <a 
.^ 3 — 



m irt m 
Kl M -J- 



C5 in 
m fo 



o o in C3 o o 



oomininocs^ 
vj- vj- fM Kl M ro 



o o o o m 
K) ro ro pj f\j 



in o o 
CM fM rvj 



H 
to 

j: 



o o o o o o 
«* vj- m >* ^ in 



oooinoooooo 



o o o 
ro to M 



o in in o o 
«* to Ki ro ro 



oooooooooo 
>j-invj--j-vj--*tOK>rovi- 



inominoomooinooocDOOOO 
toforoiotofMOJtoiorvitotoiofvJrorgrvjrM 



2 

"S 



oooooooooooomooomoomooooo 



in m 

to ~* in in in 



vj-N3-rotototo>*toto»*iof\Jtof\jin>i->»vi 



to in «* -J ro 



o 
u 



o in o o 
in ^T -J- »j- 



in in o o o 
to to to to to 



OOOOOinOOCDOOOCSOOOOOO 

totototoioMtototototorMfMiNjfNjfMrjrjfvi 



o 
to 



a 

5 

o 



inmoooinooooooinoooooooinoinooooo 
-j-tototofMtoininfMfo>»-«4-tOfotOvi->a-iototo>rio<MtorjtofOfO 



"8 



c 

CO 



o 

c_ 
a. 

'« 
ro 
«o 



CO 

















■9 




















^ 


1- 














•M 






u 


u 














<n 


in 




7 


(/) 


4^ 




? 






i. 


v 


Ul 








w 






^ 


0) 


c 


c 






? 


o 




o 


.^ 


<u 


> 


o 




^ 


a 


o 




o. 


r 


(U 




u. 


i_ 




1. 


o 


Cf 








L. 


oc 




Q. 


Q 




a. 




j^ 


c 


(/) 


u 




CO 


to 


^ 


t- 




VI 


% 


o 






0) 


« 




^ 


m 


c 








0) 


u. 


8 


^ 


<0 


m 




■a 


u 


^ 


o 


1- 


a 




2 






f- 


CO 




L. 


ji 


• V— 


4-' 


J- 


c 


^ 


u 


N 


_^ 


0) 


o 


a 


r 


8 


1. 


L. 


1. 


N 


.af 


«J 




i_ 


<a 


o 


<0 


(_ 


10 


3 


• ^ 


CO 


n: 


Q. 


to 


—1 


3: 


ca 


U. 


a. 


m 


z 


3 



•— — ' to 



S7> u a 



c 

10 — 

JC o 

<o a. 

S- E 

c — > 

■0 03 



"8 

o a» 



^ ^ >. u 
c a> o o 

O — I — ' IJ^ 



« 




41 


o 


^ 


o 


.^ 


>. 


U 


Q 


0) 


X 


a> 


«) 


O 


c 


a> 


4-f 


— 1 




UU 


^ 


1. 


CO 




_rf 




<0 


o 




a> 


<0 


OJ 


a: 




u. 


«> 


> 






4-* 




_i 




O 


o 


01 


u> 




j: 


g 


s. 


JZ 


-^ 


lA 


() 




(> 


f- 


Ul 


3; 


t. 


fe 


♦-» 


0) 


O 


ft) 


Q 


jr 


z 


CQ 


CO 


o 


:c 


(O 



— -^ (fl 4) 



CO OJ 4^ 



(/) _J u. 



T3 

8 

3 



4) 4-» — ' 



«-r\Jto-*in>ot^eoo 



o T- rvj 



v» in <o N. CO 0> 



to to u 



o«— f\ito>*in>ot^«00> 
(Mfvit\ir\if\itMrgcM<Njrg 



(U 

3 



t_i «; 







<M 


O 


o 


o 




o 


fVJ 


r\j 


rj 


(M 


(/> 


►- 











c 


V 


„^ 


«J 


(/) 


as 




Z3 


•»- 


t- 




*-* 


o 


C 


c 






0) 


I- 


(^ 


o 


3 


3: 


a. 



-8 



J5 
CO 
<U 



"8 



"8 

o 

s 



"2 

a 
"3. 

3 



-O* 



o in in o 



oinkninininoooooooomino 
0«ooa3oococooooococo>o>0^'«OmLntn 



m in o o o o 

ro to hO K> f\j CO 



inininoooinmooininoocDOooinoinocDOininooo 
•*roroin>»Nj-^K)>*->r^to>*MMroK>fOfOK>fNirof\Jro<MfMfvj(MCM 



o o o o 
in •>»• >*■ v» 



o o o 
m vt vf 



oooooooo 



in o o o 
r«i ro r«i to 



in 
to 



o m in o o 
"J- ro to to to 



oooc30CDtnooininoocDOOC3inoooinooooooo 
tnro»j--j-vj-^i-roto^toio~}-rOfOfNJtorofMK)KiforjK)torM(\jrorsjrj 



ominooooooomooooinooo 
inro^u^^-4-KitOK)-*^intoror»jfMtotoin 



^ fO -* 



o o o o o 
in to >i 



«j- -J- to 



C3 o m 



-J- in -* 



oiftOOC300inoooooc300in 
totototototototototototovj-totorjto 



00000C300 
tOrvlfMfM'MtM'^'M 



in o 

to lA 



oinomoooooo 
ioio<Mtomio>rtoto>» 



oooooinooooooinoo 

N*fOrJv»-tO«*K)tOfOCSItOtOfMtOtO 



^ 







"8 



m a. ^ 

^ E O 

01 n CI 

u- 3 t_ 

»/> o 

c 

CO *^ o 



o 


01 


6 


.J 


£ 


£ 


j: 




o 




CA 


c 


4^ 


^^ 


!S 


0> 


09 


•^ 


(/) 


z 


X 


X 



'- 6 c 
o 3 CO 
z u (/> 



^ .^ 4^ 



»-(\ltO-*in»or^ooo. 



o »- CJ 



>j m -o N. 



C00>0«— IMfO»J-in'Of^«00 
•-«-tMrsJ(Mrj(MtMfNJ(M<NI<N' 



6-16 



Mac . Rank .6-14 
^ 11/30/87 

We feel that these systematically developed computerized ranks very closely 
parallel our overall professional assessments of the sites. On "gut 
feeling" we are inclined to think that Mill Creek, Sugarfoot Hammock, and 
Hornsby Springs should have made it into the high priority grouping. And we 
are not completely comfortable with Barr Hammock coming out quite so high on 
the list. 

We are pleased with the ranking system, and feel it gives an excellent 
evaluation of relative priorities at the preliminary overview study level. 
After formulation of a more detailed protection plan taking into account the 
many non-ecological factors involved in finalizing boundaries, the rankings 
could be refined by incorporating diversity and acreage data for each 
habitat on a site into the completeness x size score. 



6-17 



_^ Alac . Rank .7-1 

11/30/87 

7.0 RESOURCE PROTECTION EVALUATION 

KBN's contract stipulates that we identify which of the strategies 
identified in the Fourth Draft of the updated Conservation Element of the 
Alachua County Comprehensive Plan is most appropriate given the 
characteristics of the ecological communities on each of the sites 
inventoried in the course of this project. The two basic strategies are 1) 
preservation, setting the site aside as a natural area, or 2) conservation, 
allowing carefully planned development compatible with the site's ecological 
resources . 

We feel that the sites we have listed as Significant Upland Ecological 
Communities should be managed under the preservation strategy. Those 
described as Special Habitats should be managed under the conservation 
strategy, as should buffers and linkages as those are defined. 
Additionally, any Significant Upland Ecological Communities which cannot be 
preserved should be treated as conservation areas. 

To facilitate decision-making processes, we have indicated whether or not we 
feel there is any reasonable alternative to preservation of the entire site, 
ie., whether could you use part of it for active recreation or put in 
cluster development and still maintain the integrity of the significant 
ecological community. 

Another task set forth in the scope of services was to evaluate the upland 
community classification and ranking systems to assure that they are 
compatible with the goals, objectives, policies, standards, and criteria 
identified in the most recent draft of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan 
Conservation Element, the objectives of 9J-5 FAC, and the conservation 
polices of NCFRPC Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (July 1, 1987). 

These policy documents call for an identification, analysis and inventory of 
upland communities including sandhills, pine f latwoods , grassy scrub, xeric 
hammock, and mesic hammock (4th Draft of Alachua County Comprehensive Plan 
Conservation Element) , natural systems (NCFRPC Comprehensive Regional Plan) 
and natural vegetative communities (9J-5). These policy documents also call 



7-1 



Mac. Rank. 7 -2 
_^ 11/30/87 

for the conservation and/or preservation of these ecological communities. 
The Alachua County Conservation Element calls for the ranking of these 
ecological communities on the basis of rarity, connectiveness , degree of 
completeness, and management potential. The completed inventory addresses 
all these issues and was designed to be consistent with the goals, 
objectives, policies, standards, and criteria of FNAI and state and regional 
conservation policy objectives. 



7-2 



Alac.Rank.8-1 
11/30/87 



8.0 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING NEEDS 

Throughout this report we mention areas where additional information would 

be valuable. Several such data gaps stand out as especially significant. 

It is very important to define ecological linkages and buffer zones as soon 
as possible. To be most meaningful, this should be done in a regional 
context in cooperation with NCFRPC and/or the surrounding counties . 

Boundaries also need to be defined for the three Special Habitat areas 
described in this report. 

Small sites in the vicinity of buffers, linkages, and Special Habitats 
should be inventoried, preferably before boundaries for these areas are 
finalized. 

Once buffers, linkages, and Special Habitats are indicated on maps 
according to the best available scientific rationales, review and 
regulation procedures need to be developed to address the specific 
protection needs of each ecosystem. 

A resource inventory and management plan should be prepared for any site 
established as a preserve. To be successful this must involve the input of 
both natural area management ecologists and planners who understand the 
recreation needs and other human use objectives the site is to fulfil. 

The results of systematic inventories of wetlands, aquatic systems, 
archaeological sites, and geological features (including their biological 
aspects) need to be integrated with the information in this report. 

The county should work with local biologists and with the Florida Natural 
Areas Inventory to maintain a data base on animals and plants rare in 
Alachua County (or rare most places except in this region, and thus 
dependent upon our conservation efforts) . Small sites suspected of 
supporting these species should be inventoried on a priority basis and 



8-1 



_»_ Alac.Rank.8-2 

11/30/87 

protected through landowner agreements or inclusion in neighborhood parks or 
utility buffers or through whatever similar means is feasible. 

The sites noted in Appendix 9.3 need to be investigated. They may be as 
important as some of the low priority sites listed in Section 6. The Kincaid 
Flatwoods pond pine site looks like the highest priority of these. 

We feel that prairies of the sort found in Alachua County tend to "slip 
through the cracks" of natural community classification based inventory and 
should therefore be inventoried separately. These systems are such a mosaic 
of both natural and anthropogenic marsh and prairie communities that they 
cannot be meaningfully sorted by FNAI categories at the county level. 



8-2 



APPENDIX 9.1 

Letters and Forms Used to 
Solicit and Record Information 




August 6, 1987 



Alachua County Conservationists: 



KBN is conducting a Comprehensive Inventory of Natural Ecological 
Communities for Alachua County and we would appreciate input as to important 
natural areas that should be recognized. 

Since wetlands are relatively well documented, we are focusing on 
upland communities and wetlands that do not meet the species composition 
criteria for regulatory protection. Thus the basic upland categories we are 
looking for are sandhills, scrub (or rosemary communities that come close to 
it) , xeric hammock, upland pine forest (on clayey soil) , upland mixed forest 
(mesic hammock), prairie hammock (oak palm), mesic f latwoods , scrubby 
flatwoods, bluff, dry prairie, sinkhole, and slope forest. The major 
wetland types of concern are baygall, bog, wet flatwoods, hydric hammock, 
and floodplain forest. Even though we are not inventorying all wetlands, we 
would appreciate notes on "special" wetlands -- rookeries, dragonfly seeps, 
rare plant sites, etc. 

KBN's study team (Linda Duever, Bob Simons, Jim Newman, and Reed Noss) 
will sift through leads from groups like yours and many other sources, field 
survey the most promising sites, rank them as to importance and viability, 
and make recommendations to the county as to appropriate measures for their 
protection. This information will become valuable background information 
for refinement of the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the 
Greenspace Advisory Committee's work, and for other conservation planning 
efforts. 

Unfortunately, this study must be conducted on an extremely tight 
schedule because it is funded under a Department of Community Affairs grant 
that stipulates that the final report must be in Tallahassee by September 
30, 1987. This means that WE MUST HAVE YOUR INPUT BY LATE AUGUST! And the 
sooner we get it, the better the report will be. 

Enclosed is a Site Recommendation Form you can copy and use to suggest 
sites. Keep in mind that we are inventorying sites that have high quality 
native habitat. Scenic pastures and borrow pits full of ducks don't count. 

Thank you for you cooperation. Please call if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 



C&(^c 



Linda Conway Duever 
Staff Ecologist 



U'DM CMrilMCCDIMri AKin ADDIICrrx o^ii-M^i-o 



SITE RECOMMENDATION 

I/we suggest thaC KBN investigate the following site and consider it for inclusion in 
the Comprehensive Inventory of Natural Ecological Communities for Alachua County 

SITE NAME:_ 

COMMUNITY TYPE: 

LOCATION: 



TRS: QUAD: OWNER: 

DIRECTIONS: 



SIZE: 



INFORMATION SOURCES 



DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 



NOTEWORTHY SPECIES 



FUTURE PROSPECTS 



NAME: DATE:_ 

ADDRESS :_ PHONE: 

ORGANIZATION: 



Literature : 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

S ITENAME : NUMBER : 

COMMUNITY TYPE: 

LOCATION : 

TRS: QUAD: OWNER: 

DIRECTIONS : 

SIZE: 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: 
Persons: 



Files: Field Survey: 

Additional Information Sources: 



KEY FEATURES: 



FUTURE PROSPECTS: 



RECOMMENDATIONS : 



Source: KBN, 1987 

NOTE: DRAFT, NOT FOR CITATION Date: Preparer Initials 



FIELD SURVEY SUMMARY 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION: 



CANOPY/TREE LAYER_ 



SUBCANOPY/SHRUB LAYER; 



UNDERSTORY/GROUND COVER: 



SOIL: 



GEOLOGIC FEATURES 



HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS 



NOTEWORTHY SPECIES: 



SUCCESSIONAL STATUS/VIABILITY: 



EVIDENCE OF 
logging: 



clearing/grading : 

grazing: 

fire: 



hydrologic modifications 

dredging/filling: 

other disturbance: 



PHOTOS 



Date 



Surveyor's Initials 




To: Key Alachua County Natural Area Experts 

From: Linda C. Duever, KBN 

Date: November 1, 1987 

Re: Comprehensive Inventory of Natural Ecological Communities in 
Alachua County 

You probably saw a copy of the enclosed information request letter 
last August. Most of you who responded simply expressed faith in the 
study team's familiarity with the area and said you felt you had little 
to add. We found this flattering, but worried that the lack of 
external input might lead to oversights. Therefore, we would like you 
to review the enclosed confidential draft list of the sites we have 
identified and tell us if we have missed anything important. 

Fortunately, county officials realized that a study of this 
importance should not be conducted on a cramped schedule, so they 
requested and received a contract extension from DCA. Nevertheless, 
our report needs to be in to the county the middle of this month so 
they can review and submit it by December first. Please try to get 
your comments back to us by next week. 

Remember that although the title of our study says 
"comprehensive," our instructions were to focus on uplands. And, 
within this project's budget, we decided to concentrate our efforts on 
the largest sites with the best prospects for long-term viability. We 
therefore reviewed recent infrared aerials and field surveyed 50+ acre 
sites that looked like relatively natural uplands. Interviews and 
literature surveys yielded notes on few significantly smaller sites. 
Even though small sites have not been a priority for our more thorough 
investigations, we would like to locate and list as many of them as 
possible so county planners are aware of them. 

We have mentioned geological and archaeological features and 
wetland and aquatic communities where we have found information about 
occurrences associated with good examples of uplands. But, since these 
sites will be inventoried separately, we have not attempted to hunt for 
them systematically. We would like to know about any of these features 
if they are associated with high quality upland communities. 

Our reports avoid mentioning the location of sensitive sites like 
little-known sinkholes and populations of organisms popular with 
collectors, but we are taking these into account in evaluating sites. 
Any relevant data you may have on such places would be greatly 
appreciated and handled responsibly. 



KBN ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES, INC. 

p. O Rdy 14?Rfl .«^7nr> c;\A/ ^Ath SfrPfif Gainpsvillo PI oocn-i nnj /o-rc oiv\n 




November 1, 1987 
Page 2 



You will notice that we have tentatively identified twelve 
priority sites for preservation. These emerged from scoring on the 
basis of vulnerability, rarity, completeness, manageability, 
connectedness, and nature- oriented human use potential. 

Please review the enclosed map and list and send us 1) any 
significant data that should be incorporated into our detailed reports 
on the twelve top-priority sites; 2) rationales and information on 
other sites you feel are of comparable value; and/or 3) locations and 
descriptions of additional places we should list. 

Thanks ! 

Sincerely, 



c^4(>tdaJ(l CujumyU 



Linda C. Duever 
Staff Ecologist 



i I .i - , 1 i 

' i :l; ■! I 'III I 

» i; ("ijl . . I .1 : » I « ! 

I lliliij|iii||!iJ!ll!|j!j!|.i||fiiiliii!,lj, I, Mi! 
i iil!illlil!lliii!;Hi!niii|ii!h;:i,.iii lyijiiyHilliiiiJii I! 

= llllilllliw^;:m;:w^it!li:illi•]:^-■---- 



^ O 



I + 



! hi U 



I'il! 



O I MB l,;f li 



: ^ 



li;; 



'ii!!!ii!^l!liJ!L!lHil P u 

li 11 Hi II ,! !! im r-^ z^ 



3 g 'HiEit f:m! 



MM 



* ii i ■! i |JS g 

|i ; 'Jm'l!'llli)![]!ii!li!'|!|!ii) 



< 





1: I 1 1.. J u 



i + 







G2 



/ = 



CONFIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY DRAFT LIST OF SITES EVALUATED 

FOR 
AIAaiUA COLTJTY 
COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 

KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. 

November 1, 1987 

This information is not to be cited, quoted, or paraphrased. 

Numbers are key to map locations and have no relation to 
priorities . 

I. Sites Considered as Potential Preserves 

KBN's report will recommend that the county place a high priority 
on promoting preservation of the areas marked with an asterisk. Those 
without asterisks will be ranked according to preservation priority. 

■* 1. Kanapaha Prairie (includes CARL proposal, city land to the 

northeast, section 7 to the west, and other surrounding natural 
lands) 

* 3. Watermelon Pond (includes all natural xeric communities in 

vicinity) 

* 4. Hickory Sink (includes all reasonably restorable pineland and 

high quality caves and sinks in vicinity) 

6. Buzzard's Roost 

* 7. Mill Creek/Townsend Branch (includes all natural forest in area) 

* 11. Lochloosa Forest (includes CARL proposal and inholdings within 

it, Lochloosa Creek, and portions of Franklin land to southwest, 
emphasizing Palatka Pond pinelands, Orange Lake Palm Hammock, 
and River Styx) 

* 12. Hornsby Springs (includes associated forests, scrub, and sinks) 

15. Gum Root Swamp (includes nearby uplands) 

17. Santa Fe Creek (includes forest along creek and area where it 
joins Santa Fe River) 

19. Shenks Flatwoods 

20. Northeast Lake Altho Flatwoods 

21. Santa Fe Canal Flatwoods 

22. Rocky Creek (includes forests along creek) 



26. Serenola Forest (includes lands linking hammock with Paynes 

Prairie and remnants north of Williston Road, including Pickwick 
Sink) 

* 27. Barr Pasture (includes natural and restorable hammocks between 

Levy and Ledwith prairies extending east to 1-75 through pond 
pine flatwoods and scrubby flatwoods and west to SR 121 along 
lower end of Levy Prairie) 

* 28. Sugarfoot Hammock (includes Split Rock and associated 

public-owned tracts west of 1-75, Hogtown Prairie, and 
manageable hammock remnants east of 1-75) 

* 32. Santa Fe River (includes entire Alachua County floodplain and 

natural or restorable upland forests along river corridor) 

* 35. Upper Hatchet Creek (includes associated sandhills, flatwoods, 

and bogs and extends northeast to SR 24) 

36. Paradise Lost (Alvin Davis' beech forest) 

* 40. Prairie Creek (includes CARL proposal, scrub to northwest, and 

Zetrouer property to northeast) 

46. North San Felasco Hammock 

48. Millhopper Flatwoods 

53. Palm Point Hill (includes lakeshore) 

* 54. Chacala Pond (Murphy -DeConna CARL proposal) 
56. Domino Hammock 



II. Sites Considered as Development Areas 

KBN's report will recommend that these areas be developed under 
guidelines that will maintain their longterm value as wildlife habitat, 



A. Millhopper Sandhills/Rock Creek 

B. South LaCrosse Forest 

C. Grass Prairie 

D. Fred Bear Hammock 

E. Kanapaha Sandhills 

F. Cross Creek Hammock 



III. other Sites 

KBN has investigated these sites, but removed them from further 
consideration because, although they do have important environmental 
values which should be considered in development planning, they do not 
have outstanding examples of viable upland ecological communities: 

5. Mill Creek Sink 

8. Moss Lee Lake Sandhills (viability dependent upon Putnam County) 

14. South Melrose Flatwoods 

15. West Melrose Flatwoods 

13. Santa Fe Southeast Hammock 

23. Hainesworth Ravines 

45. Wacahoota Woods 

49. Robinson Sinks 

51. Tacoma Hill 

30. Oak Hollow 

KBN has investigated these sites, but removed them from further 
consideration because they are already committed to preservation: 

44. Warren's Cave 

60. Grant's Cave 



KBN has investigated these sites, but removed them from further 
consideration because they are already committed to destructive 
development : 

2. Parchman Pond Scrub 



These sites were suggested to KBN, but not investigated because 
they seemed to represent aquatic systems or geological features and 
therefore fall beyond the scope of an uplands inventory: 

Blues Creek 

Savior's Cave 



APPENDIX 9.2 

Sites of Relatively Minor Importance 
As Upland Habitats 



9.2. SITES OF RELATIVELY MINOR IMPORTANCE AS UPLAND HABITATS 

KBN investigated these sites, but removed them from further consideration 
because, although they do have important environmental values which should 
be considered in development planning, they do not have outstanding examples 
of viable upland ecological communities: 

Mill Creek Sink 

West Melrose Flatwoods 

Santa Fe Southeast Hammock 

Hainesworth Ravines 

Santa Fe Canal Flatwoods 

Wacahoota Woods 

Robinson Sinks 

Tacoma Hill 

Oak Hollow 

These sites were suggested to KBN, but not investigated because they seemed 
to represent aquatic systems or geological features and therefore fall 
beyond the scope of an uplands inventory: 

Blues Creek 

Savior's Cave 
These sites were investigated and found to be primarily geological features 
and already in secure ownership: 

Warren's Cave 
Grant ' s Cave 



APPENDIX 9.3 

Smaller Sites that Appear to Have 
Quality Upland Ecological Communities 
and Merit Investigation 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

NUMBER: 



SITE NAKE: jfj^c^:^ j^ / a. ^Cfyo Ot/^ 

COMMUNITY TYPE: \ ^^^ 

, LOCATION: h^oj/-/- .> ^. //>>/- .TE </f ^/- J^/*-<^~^ 



TRS: QUAD: /^^z .m ^^<^>Y /^ 'B'tf-ar^ 

DIRECTIONS: 



SIZE: '^ f7 A t^w-tr-r 



OWNER: 



INFORMATION SOURCES USED: 
Persons: - 



Literature: 



Files: 



Additional Information Sources: 



Field Survey: 



FEATURES: J^Kf^Y^ ^<t^^^Y^/^6 A^/o^y^r^j p^^^ P."^ <- 1^r^S( 



KEY 



FUTURE PROSPECTS 



RECOMMENDATIONS : 



/^. b^ JF/^'^^ 






., ^ vV. i ^ -^53/ 



ii 



»v\ 



F i'; St ]-^^y-hy--T- 



Source: KBN, 1987 

NOTE: DRAFT, NOT FOR CITATION Date: Preparer's Initials 



FIELD SURVEY SUMMARY 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION: S O y^* />7^7^y(S f^<^ /o- 100 -f/ - J'^ ( f O^i / /^ ^ 

CANOPY/TREE LAYER (^<y^ ^ K? .^^ <. ^.''f'h ^c%ryv^ ^ T^-CV jp Jn^ -^^ ,J^i^ -C. 

SUBCANOPY/SHRUB LAYER: T<:r-eui^^ ^^j^^^JT yiJCj" Yo^f-..^^ y^.'^CT /.'^j 

UNDERSTORY/GROUND COVER: >•- _yV9^ V^Tg 

SOIL: 

GEOLOGIC FEATURES: 



HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS 



NOTEWORTHY SPECIES: 



fj^^i .'^f'-'ty^^ *^ /<rA^. /p*-i<i^ /c^Jn^^^ t\i ^^^c*>vy;^ 



SUCCESSIONAL STATUS/VIABILITY: 



EVIDENCE OF : 
logging: 



clearing/grading: 

grazing: 

fire: 



hydrologic modifications: 

dredging/filling: 

other disturbance: 



PHOTOS : 



Date 



: h/<^ />!>y Surveyor's Initials (ft 'O^f^ 



Surveyo 

Date: 

Time: 



r: ^ CVy\ i:y\A^ J" 



/CYVi^^.'^ p^^^^^oc^^^ 



Source code:_ 



PLANT LIST 



List species observed and mark appropriate colmucn. If specimens are collected indicate 
collection tf . Indicate if identification is positive or tentative. 



Species 



Positive identification 



^t\\yi>^ ■T<VrO'^V*K^ 



«* p^fytS-t-v,-^ 






i « ^ ^ ' I ^ 



Tentative identification 



Doa. 
tree 



A 



Other 
tree 



c? 



Dom . 
sh-v 



Other 
sh-v 



Doa . 
herb 



Other 
herb 



Coll. 
// 



•^#0^ 



//< 






^ 



^ 



t« 



frifi r 



i-r/^l^A. 



O 



^^ n<^»>T/Xp/<cv*v<c 



/^r<^ ytchy 



UO^-O. 



f^ 



.rj-^ 



iiij^ 



^r/\. 






i:z 



ji 



fry^<^^^f^^^:y 



O 



J/-<?^ /-/r :?^*r>Vt ^ 



jL 



hbr 






2 



c 



F 



^^■^■^^•f^ ^>fe'»f »^V""*»^< 



■f 



O 



^ 



*v^ '^ 



lt^4','^^a 






C^ 



^2. 



\/Uc< yr. fo^^:^ / .w 




y\rv\ fj^y: 



flC A » z/g> ^-<>«^ ^»vwt r-Af i/t^ l^/ur^^ . 



o 



L-^e ^.'^ (^^i^S^fCU^ 



Tr ill T^t, aJ^r^^^^rt'^i 



£. 



IL 



Cc^ rp h <ph c^^ >/" ^'^> 



nn^ hi^J't'^yi^^n^ 






_^ 



C^ 



u 






CP 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 

SITE NAME: Ma^^ Th r ^\a ^ 5 1^^^ -^ ( NUMBER: 

COMMUNITY TYPE: I ^ ^ ' ^ 

LOCATION : f^^yf- W^ m ,WJ"/x: ^-^ ^^^ A:v>i re^ /.-^va >^ 



TRS: -ryS- (F t-? £ QUAD: />/.'^|, Jhr.^^,^ J^MX 

DIRECTIONS :_ . ■■ ^ / 

SIZE: ^ j QtP ct,cv^J' OWNER: 

INFORMATION SOURCES USED: 

Persons:- - ■ - - • 



Literature: 



Files: 



Additional Information Sources 



Field Survey: 



KEY FEATURES 



\4^^ y^t'^^o cft^ 7^^ *^ -^^ I 



FUTURE PROSPECTS: 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



^^•<xrCr /ory/r^h^y ^V^ / 



Source: KBN, 1987 



NOTE: DRAFT, NOT FOR CITATION Date: Preparer's Initials 6C ^^V^J> 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 



}\eei^ e \T/p /^ 



SITE NAME 
COMMUNITY 
LOCATION 

TRS: ' ' QUADr ^/f/ye^^^Z/rr 
DIRECTIONS : 



NUMBER: 






v^ 



SIZE: ]C<Pi- 4LCy^-c^ 



INFORMATION SOURCES USED: 
Persons : 



OWNER: J-.^, ;<^^t^^ (TA ^ r5p>c ^^^ 



Literature : 



Files: 



Additional Information Sources 



Field Survey: 



KEY FEATURES: V<: ^r:^ ^^^^t^V SS/1 K ^ K Y V"'^^^ ^^"^ 1^ *J b<^^ ^^P^'^^^ 



FUTURE PROSPECTS 



RECOMMENDATIONS : 



Source: KBN, 1987 

NOTE: DRAFT, NOT FOR CITATION 



Date: 



Preparer's Initials 



FIELD SURVEY SUMMARY 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION: 3 ^^r-C. ^-^^p? ^•^^'C/ .T<S^ /c /?«>/<^ ^^vi^ 
^/ ^^■^^^■6 r.-)spr^jy p'^^^^^ ^^ Ir^rtr^tt^t^^'^^c?^^^''^ 

CANOPY/TREE LAYER 

SUBCANOPY/SHRUB LAYER: 

UNDERSTORY/GROUND COVER: 



SOIL: 



GEOLOGIC FEATURES 



HYDROLOGIC CHARf\CTERISTICS 



NOTEWORTHY SPECIES: 



SUCCESSIONAL STATUS/VIABILITY: 



EVIDENCE OF 
logging: 



clearing/grading: 

grazing: 

fire: 



hydrologic modifications: 

dredging/filling: 

other disturbance: 



PHOTOS : 



Date: H^ /^ y Surveyor's Initials ([( ^J^ 



ALACHUA COUNTY NATURAL AREA SITE RECORD 



siTENAME: Tblinirree Gmve^ number: 

^OMKniMTTV TVPP * 



COMMUNITY TYPE 



LOCATION : H. nV 91-h ^Vfi. 



TRS: QUAD: OWNER: 

DIRECTIONS : [ 

SIZE: 



INFORMATION SOURCES USED: \ r I ^ r i 

Person^ Nnff<; from D?^n\A!^rr1 5/Q/gS m T^hn KfndriX5 filg^ . 

Literature: 



>^. 



Files :_\ Field Survey: 

Additional Information Sources: 



KEY FEATURES: nlis j\)ncV Iruliphree p n pulRfio\n A(M)i-hrY;rno^(:?^ 



FUTURE PROSPECTS 



^^'^T^t™^^' ^'^*^ T)an abouirtj: wKeh hf^. qf^.h b^r.k fr^rx. 



Source: KBN, 1987 . / 

NOTE: DRAFT, NOT FOR CITATION Date: 9j 14/^ 7 Preparer Initials^ 



APPENDIX 9.4 
Quad Sheets with Preliminary Boundary Maps 



3ab^o'\in2f^in{ 




FL3> 
I 



Plan 



rJoio-dcpcuM